PETITION
	 — 
	St. Bartholomew's Hospital

Mark Field: I should like to present a petition on behalf of more than 21,600 residents and members of the work force in the City of London. It states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of over 21,600 residents and members of the workforce in the City of London.
	Declares that the heightened threat of an international terrorist incident has resulted in a curtain of steel being set up around the City of London which makes it essential that there is a fully-functioning medical facility within the City boundary in order that those living and working within that curtain are able to receive urgent and immediate medical attention.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to do all in its power to restore St. Bartholomew's as a teaching and a district general hospital and that its Accident and Emergency Department be re-opened immediately.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED

Fire Services

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Hoon, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Peter Hain, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to confer power on the Secretary of State to set or modify the conditions of service of members of fire brigades and to give directions to fire authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 24 March, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 81].

Orders of the Day

Female Genital Mutilation Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important Bill. Its main purpose is to extend the scope of the law prohibiting female genital mutilation—FGM. It will prevent parents from taking their daughters abroad to have the procedure performed. It is about protecting the human rights of women, which is a strong reason for my choice of this Bill over the many hundreds of others that were suggested to me. I am pleased that the Bill is being strongly backed by the Home Secretary.
	Female genital mutilation has been explicitly illegal in this country since 1985, when the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act was passed. However, in some communities in the UK, as well as abroad, the practice is still accepted and even condoned. Its victims are often young and vulnerable. They suffer enormous physical and psychological harm throughout their lives, yet they suffer in silence. Offences are rarely reported to, or acted on, by the authorities.
	FGM is not reported for many reasons, including ignorance, fear or community or cultural pressure to remain silent. Although we understand that and we sympathise, we cannot condone it. We cannot allow the situation to continue. We should be failing our children, our young women and our communities if we did so.
	We need to send a strong message that the practice of FGM is wholly unacceptable. We cannot leave the matter to be decided by personal preference, culture or custom. FGM is harmful. I hope that the Bill will send that message very powerfully indeed. The Bill is just a starting point. There is much to be done to educate communities and to provide women with the support that they need to oppose this barbaric practice openly. All that is beyond the scope of the Bill.
	The Bill makes it clear that we will not condone those who want to take their daughters abroad so as to evade UK law. To reflect the harm that we think results from the procedure, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from five to 14 years.

Jonathan Djanogly: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Lady has said, but can she explain how increased prison terms will have any effect if people are not prosecuted, as is currently the case?

Ann Clwyd: I should have liked the hon. Gentleman to hear more of my speech. He will see what we have in mind as it develops. There have been no prosecutions in this country and that is deplorable, but we need to send a strong message about the penalties that can be imposed if there is a successful prosecution.
	FGM is the collective term for a range of procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs, for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. It can have devastating and harmful consequences for a woman throughout her life. The health problems experienced vary depending on circumstances. Sometimes, the procedure is performed in unsanitary conditions, which lead to infection and other complications. Sometimes the girl resists, which, unfortunately, increases the likelihood that she will be harmed.
	In those parts of the world where FGM is the norm, it is usually performed by traditional "circumcisers" in unsanitary conditions, and with non-sterile equipment. It might be carried out with crude instruments such as kitchen knives, razor blades or broken glass. In some areas, it is carried out by professionals in hospitals, but most international organisations—including the World Health Organisation and the British Medical Association—agree that health professionals should not carry out FGM. It is slightly safer for the procedure to be carried out in that way, but that does not prevent the harmful consequences that can ensue. Some time ago, the Select Committee on International Development produced a report on women and development. The report considered this issue closely, and we took evidence from a number of people.
	Longer-term consequences can be particularly severe, and there can be associated difficulties in pregnancy and in childbirth. Women who have been mutilated are twice as likely to die in childbirth, and three or four times as likely to have a stillborn child. This is a frightening statistic. Estimates suggest that between 130 million and 150 million women and girls have undergone FGM worldwide. It is reportedly practised in 28 African countries, as well as by some ethnic groups in the Arabian peninsula, the Persian gulf and south-west Asia. It has also been reported in immigrant populations in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and north America.
	However, FGM is no longer confined to Africa, parts of Arabia and south-east Asia, where it is practised as the norm. The general movement of people and ease of travel have led to people from these areas moving to western countries. Ongoing wars and civil unrest, especially in the horn of Africa, where the practice is endemic, mean that there will be a continuing exodus of people to other parts of the world, especially Europe, the USA and Australia. These people bring their customs and practices with them—including FGM.
	Accurate information about the extent to which FGM is practised in this country is difficult to come by. The most accurate view is probably that of the Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development—Forward—which estimates that there are 74,000 first-generation African immigrant women in the UK who have undergone FGM, and as many as 7,000 girls under 16 within the practising communities who are at risk from FGM. This estimate is based on the number of immigrants and refugees settled in the UK from countries, mainly in the horn of Africa, where FGM is endemic. There are substantial populations from these countries in London, Liverpool, Birmingham Sheffield and Cardiff. In the familiar pattern of first-generation immigrants, they tend to settle together in these inner cities.
	The origins of FGM are not known. It is an age-old practice that is deeply steeped in the culture of the practising communities. Reasons for maintaining it include purification, family honour, hygiene, aesthetic reasons, protection of virginity and prevention of promiscuity, enhancing fertility, decreasing the sexual desire of women, acceptance by the community, and increasing matrimonial opportunities. However, although it is performed by many different religious groups, including Muslims, Christians and Jews—and by non-believers—FGM is not a religious practice, as some claim. Leaders of all the main faiths, I am glad to say, have spoken out against it.
	The age at which FGM is undertaken varies. It is usually performed on girls between the age of four and 10, but in some cultures it is practised as early as a few days after birth, or as late as immediately before marriage, during pregnancy or after the first birth. Support for the eradication of FGM is international, and is being pursued at all levels by organisations such as the World Health Organisation. The practice is now widely perceived as a form of child abuse, although the members of those communities that practise it genuinely believe that it is in their child's best interest, and do not intend it as a deliberate act of abuse.
	Concern is occasionally expressed that in acting against FGM we are seeking to impose liberal western values on FGM-practising communities, and that we should be more culturally sensitive. Indeed, I remember that, when the Select Committee on International Development took evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) took issue with Germaine Greer, who thought that we should leave the culture alone. My hon. Friend had some very strong things to say about that.
	FGM is in no way like male circumcision. It is much more harmful, and there is no medical justification for it. Respect for other cultures does not mean that we should ignore practices that are so harmful, and that violate the most basic human rights: the right of women not to be discriminated against because of their gender, under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women; and, in particular, the right of the child to enjoy their childhood, and to the
	"enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health",
	as laid down in article 24 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
	FGM was probably never legal in this country, because it almost certainly constitutes an offence against the person. However, in order to remove any ambiguity that may have existed in law, it was decided to make the practice explicitly illegal. The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act was the result of a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), and I congratulate her on that. It was supported by the Government of the day, and the Bill before us follows in this tradition. It will strengthen and extend the protections then put in place.
	Legal protection against FGM is also provided by the Children Act 1989. If a local authority has reason to believe that a child is likely to suffer significant harm, it is obliged to make such inquiries as it considers necessary to enable it to decide whether it should take action to safeguard or to promote the child's welfare. Under the 1989 Act, a prohibited steps order can also be made to prevent parents from carrying out a particular act without the consent of the court. So the court could, even now, take steps to prevent the removal of a child from the UK so that mutilation might be carried out abroad.
	As I have said, to date, there have been no prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act. That could be, at least in part, because people who practise FGM tend to live in closed communities, and because many of the victims are so young and vulnerable that offences are not reported to the police. I hope that the strong message sent out by this Bill and the unanimity of community leaders on this issue will, in themselves, help to encourage communities to stamp out this hidden abuse. However, the lack of prosecutions may also be because our current law can be evaded. The fact that people can—indeed, evidence suggests that they do—circumvent the 1985 Act by taking young girls abroad for FGM, has been seen for some time as a loophole in law.
	In November 2000, the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive health issued a report on its survey of, and hearings on, FGM, which were carried out earlier that year. The purpose of the hearings was to raise awareness of FGM, and to generate support for prevention and eradication programmes. The group was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who has a long-standing interest in this subject, and who has put a great deal of effort into trying to get the law changed. She was supported by a very distinguished panel of people.
	The all-party group made several recommendations for changes to existing legislation. Those included substituting the term "genital mutilation" for "circumcision" in the legislation; ensuring that UK residents who take girls abroad for FGM, even to countries where the practice is lawful, can be prosecuted on their return to the UK; and increasing the maximum penalty for FGM. I am pleased to say that the Bill will give effect to all those recommendations.
	First, the Bill will repeal and re-enact the 1985 Act. The short title of the Bill describes more accurately the prohibited acts and removes any suggestion of acceptability that the word "circumcision" might imply. Secondly, and more importantly, the Bill gives extra-territorial effect to the existing provisions. That means that any of the prohibited acts done outside the UK by a UK national or permanent UK resident will be an offence under domestic law and triable in the courts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Permanent UK residents are people who ordinarily live in this country without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which they may remain. The Bill will therefore catch those with a substantial connection to the UK, but not those who are here temporarily, for example, foreign students or visitors.

Jonathan Djanogly: If a mature woman were to go abroad of her own free will to have such an operation, for whatever reason, would that be permitted under the Bill?

Ann Clwyd: I would not expect so for one moment, although I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a mature woman.

Jonathan Djanogly: Not a child.

Ann Clwyd: Such matters can be further explored in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will become a member of the Committee, as he is obviously very interested in the subject.

Bill Wiggin: This is an important Bill and I support it. However, for the sake of clarity and for the record, will the hon. Lady confirm that the terrible things that she has described in her speech are separate from the body piercing that takes place in the UK? Is that a completely separate issue, or is there any overlap?

Ann Clwyd: It is a completely separate issue.
	It is unusual in international law for a state to take jurisdiction over acts committed abroad by its residents, permanent or otherwise, as well as its nationals, especially when there is no requirement for the act to be illegal in the country in which it is committed. However, it is important that we take that step in this case. We have a duty to protect all our residents. The new Bill will mean that people who have a close connection with the UK, in the form of permanent residence, cannot evade the scope of the Bill by temporarily leaving the UK.
	Thirdly, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty for FGM from five to 14 years' imprisonment. Other than life imprisonment, that is the highest sentence that can be imposed and reflects how seriously we take the offence.
	There is no quick fix to the problem of FGM in this country or abroad. It is, unfortunately, too deeply embedded in the culture of the practising communities. Legislation on its own cannot eradicate it, but the Bill will send a powerful message about the unacceptability of FGM to those who seek to perpetuate that abhorrent practice.

Marion Roe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on being successful in the private Member's Bill ballot and on choosing the very important issue of female genital mutilation as the subject of her Bill. I also wish to thank her for her kind remarks. As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I give my full support to its principles and wish it every success during its course through the parliamentary process. I also congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive health on its report, which was published in November 2000, and on the work that it has done to raise the profile of the issue again in recent years.
	I first heard about female genital mutilation, or female circumcision as it was known in those days, in the late 1970s, when I was a member of the Greater London council. As a local government representative in London, I became aware that female genital mutilation was being practised in the United Kingdom by certain immigrant communities. That horrified me. It is not only a violation of every child's rights, but is physically harmful and has serious consequences for a girl's health.
	As soon as I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, I began to seek support from other parliamentarians of all parties, as well as the Conservative Government, for a private Member's Bill to prohibit female circumcision in the United Kingdom. Although there was much pressure from the immigrant communities affected—I was called a racist and I was accused of intervening in religious freedoms, cultural traditions and so on—my Bill became the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act, 18 years ago. It was one of the first pieces of legislation on the issue in the world.
	In formulating my Bill, for which I received full co-operation from both sides of the House, I was at great pains to block every avenue whereby those wishing to continue FGM in the UK could get around the law. I remind the House that I was breaking new ground and had no examples of similar legislation to call on from other countries. For example, much pressure was exerted on me not to include explicit wording on a surgical operation by a registered medical practitioner on a girl for her mental health. Obviously, the intent was to use the stress on a girl who is not conforming to a traditional practice as an excuse to find a gap in the legislation. Although the Bill would change the wording of my Act, I warn hon. Members of the importance of including in the Bill clarification of its intent, so that there is no question that those who wish to find loopholes to exploit will be able to do so.
	I strongly believed that making FGM unlawful was only a first step. More needed to be done to persuade those parents and family members involved to change their behaviour. While my Bill was passing through Parliament, I persuaded the Conservative Government to guarantee funding for educational purposes, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally, to eliminate the practice. I am pleased to say that the present Labour Government have continued to honour that commitment, providing hundreds of thousands of pounds for educational programmes and research, including partly funding the all-party parliamentary group report on population, development and reproductive health, to which I alluded earlier and which produced many worthwhile recommendations to the Government on the issue.
	I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many excellent voluntary and charity groups, such as Rainbo and Forward, which do magnificent work at the grass-roots level among the communities. Their efforts are vital and I am sure that they and other non-governmental organisations will be able to give expert advice to members of the Committee on how to ensure that the principles of the Bill protect young girls effectively in the way that is needed. The Government continue to give grants to NGOs as a contribution to their core activities, including collecting data on FGM in the United Kingdom; addressing linked practices impinging on FGM, such as early marriage and childbirth; and mobilising men in the practising communities, something that is very important indeed.

Shona McIsaac: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge the role that many women's monthly magazines play in educating young women about the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation?

Marion Roe: I certainly accept that. Awareness programmes, wherever they come from, are much appreciated and desperately needed.
	On the international scene, since 1997—these are the earliest figures that I have, but I know that international funding was given earlier—£226,000 has been given in aid to a project in Gambia, £200,000 has been allocated to a well women media project in the horn of Africa, £150,000 has been granted to Burkina Faso to assist in overcoming traditional practices harmful to women, and £140,000 has been used to support the World Health Organisation in training health care providers on the prevention of FGM and the management of complications in Ghana, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Cameroon. Many more countries have received the sort of aid that is vital to programmes that they are trying to initiate. The European Parliament has also considered the issue, making nine recommendations to all member states on 20 September 2001 to condemn FGM as a violation of human rights and as a crime.
	Not only should FGM be made illegal and educational programmes be initiated, but social workers and the medical professions should be included in the fight to eliminate the practice. Their participation is crucial. The British Medical Association has published detailed guidelines on FGM that are of interest to many of those who must deal with women who suffer the after-effects of FGM. That demonstrates the influence that doctors, nurses, social workers and teachers can have when they work in communities that practise FGM. Their sensitive involvement can have a lasting effect, particularly among younger women.
	My all-party friends and I, having taken my Bill through Parliament and seen it become an Act, believed that we had done something worth while and that FGM in the UK would, in time, become a thing of the past. We were therefore gravely disappointed to discover that no prosecutions were being brought under the 1985 Act. When I questioned why that was so, I was told that it was impossible to persuade children to testify against their parents and families. It seemed to me, however, that there was also a conspiracy of silence among certain members of the immigrant communities, which was very difficult to break. It became apparent that children from immigrant communities were being sent back to their country of origin for a so-called holiday so that FGM could be carried out.
	My Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act makes FGM illegal if it takes place within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. A person may be guilty of conspiracy if he or she conspires in the UK to commit FGM in a country where it is also illegal. However, a person cannot be guilty of conspiracy if the FGM occurs in a country in which it is legal. It is not an offence to conspire in the UK to commit an act abroad that is not illegal in both the UK and the country in which it is planned to occur. The question of a prosecution being brought under UK law on a family's return from abroad has been a matter of great concern to me over recent years. I am delighted that it is being addressed in the new Bill.
	We must not forget those young girls and women who have already suffered FGM. At no time should they be made to feel stigmatised. Seven specialist clinics deal with FGM, seeing women without specific referral from their doctors. They also undertake reversal surgery on mutilated women, which proves effective in some cases. The well-known clinic at Guy's hospital in London does magnificent work.
	A positive approach to FGM is evident in the UK. We must continue our commitment to women's rights with dedication and perseverance. I have also been pursuing my quest to eradicate FGM beyond our shores. With other Members of Parliament of all parties, I have represented the UK at Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences for more than five years and have raised matters of concern relating to children, including child labour, child health and female genital mutilation. The IPU organised a panel discussion on "Violence Against Women—FGM" during its 106th conference in Burkina Faso in September 2001. Its purpose was to make parliamentarians aware of the importance of eliminating this harmful traditional practice. The session was well attended by men and women Members of Parliament who wanted to take the matter further.
	A further brainstorming session was organised at the next IPU conference in Marrakesh, Morroco in March 2002, and a parliamentary think-tank for the eradiction of FGM was created. The six members of the panel were Members of Parliament from Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, Uganda, Senegal and the United Kingdom. I am the UK member. The panel has been mandated to study the possibility of working towards an international convention on the eradication of FGM and organising, if need be, a parliamentary conference on parliamentary action to eradicate FGM. That conference should be convened jointly by the IPU and the African Parliamentary Union. It should bring together MPs, Inter-African Committee representatives, religious and traditional leaders, non-governmental organisations, and former practitioners of FGM, as well as many others involved in the issue.
	A further meeting of the parliamentary think-tank will be held at the next IPU conference in Santiagio next month and discussions should result in the presentation of recommendations to the International Council of the IPU on FGM and on further work to be done in the field by the IPU, in co-operation with the APU, and by national Governments. The IPU has also set up sections on FGM on its website, including details of countries throughout the world in which FGM is practised and what action, if any, Governments have taken to eliminate it. The idea of the website is to disseminate information to anybody and everybody who has an interest in eradicating FGM so that the wheel need not be reinvented and good practice can be spread. Many African countries have found the website extremely helpful.
	I also attended a conference—"Zero Tolerance to FGM"—in Addis Ababa in February, which was organised by an NGO, the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children. I listened with great interest to presentations and comments made by young and old people representing NGOs and voluntary organisations from countries throughout Africa, as well as representatives of UNICEF and the World Health Organisation. They described plans to mobilise religious leaders, community leaders and youth with projects for entrepreneurial training for former circumcisers so that they can find new employment. There are, of course, also many awareness programmes.
	I remind hon. Members that every year 2 million young girls are estimated to be at risk from this harmful practice. It was a heartening experience to hear religious leaders explaining that there is no religious base to FGM and also to hear young men condemning that abuse of human rights. At the conference there were former circumcisers who had abandoned their practice and were now preaching to their communities the error of their ways.
	The conference adopted a common agenda for action and concluded that the fight against FGM called for a concerted and co-ordinated approach with periodic consultation and the exchange of information between all those involved in its eradication, including parliamentarians. It also endorsed the role of advocacy and lobbying to influence policy within Governments at regional, national and international levels, and declared 6 February to be an international day of zero tolerance towards FGM. The target is to eliminate FGM completely by 2010.
	We parliamentarians, male and female, must work together if we are to eradicate FGM. We must give encouragement and assist our international colleagues in making FGM illegal wherever it is practised. I congratulate those who have already done so—for example, Burkina Faso, which passed a law declaring FGM illegal in November 1996 and set up a national committee to combat the practice. We must support educational programmes and ensure that adequate funding can be found for awareness projects. We must continue the fight until we have achieved our goal of preventing young girls and women from undergoing violation and suffering. Only our determination, our voices and our actions will establish their rights and remove health risks. We have that power, and I wish the Bill—an extension of my Bill—a safe passage through its procedures as a further step forward along the long road to halt the violation of the rights of children and women.

Chris McCafferty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on having the courage to promote the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on having had the foresight to promote the original Bill in 1985.
	As a politician, I am not an expert on female genital mutilation, and as a woman I can only begin to imagine the personal trauma and suffering that the practice causes to women who have been subjected to it. I intend to base my remarks on the findings of the parliamentary hearings on FGM that I chaired in May 2000. It is important to set out a few main statistics. It is estimated that 130 million girls have undergone FGM and that every year 2 million girls worldwide are at risk of undergoing some form of the practice. The procedure is usually performed on girls between the ages of four and 13. The World Health Organisation has stated that FGM doubles the risk of the mother's death in childbirth and increases by up to three to four times the risk of the child being born dead. As we have heard, most of the women and girls affected live in Africa, but women and girls who have undergone, or are at risk of undergoing, FGM are increasingly found in western Europe and other developing countries, primarily among immigrant and refugee communities.
	In the United Kingdom, no national FGM prevalence data are available, but it is estimated that 3,000 to 4,000 girls are subjected to FGM here in the UK every year. It was in that context that the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health decided to take on board the issue of FGM and to hold parliamentary hearings. At those hearings, we heard evidence from a wide range of experts from the UK and abroad. The witnesses gave evidence on issues such as training, the effectiveness of the law against FGM, support services and care and work with community-based organisations.
	A law on female circumcision—the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985—already exists, but there have never been any prosecutions, despite evidence that FGM is taking place in this country. It is estimated that more than 7,000 girls in the UK are at risk every year.

Michael Jabez Foster: My hon. Friend suggests that there have never been any prosecutions. There is presumably no time limit on prosecutions, so could not women who have come forward to welfare groups and so forth be encouraged to give evidence, albeit perhaps many years later?

Chris McCafferty: I am sure that that is the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, such matters are more appropriately debated when the Bill reaches Committee, as I hope that it does. I know that it has support on both sides of the House, and I am sure that it will proceed.
	There are probably many reasons why there have been no prosecutions, but the survey that we conducted prior to the parliamentary hearings suggested that the two main reasons are lack of awareness of the law and fear of cultural sensitivities. Our questionnaire was sent to all the organisations that we identified as working on FGM in the UK, Europe, Africa and the USA. In the UK, questionnaires were sent to every health authority and local authority and to all social services departments and refugee councils. Surprisingly, fewer than half the people surveyed—only 46 per cent.—mentioned awareness of the law. In the UK, there was a fear of being seen as racist, and the survey of the questionnaires also showed that 25 per cent. of the UK respondents expressed a fear of being perceived to be culturally insensitive.
	FGM is a fundamental human rights issue with adverse health and social implications; it violates the rights of women and girls to bodily integrity. The issues raised by it are many and complex. It is a cultural practice that communities living in the UK may hold on to more strongly than communities back in their home countries, as it becomes an important part of their identity here in Britain or in other countries. As with other instances of abuse of women, many women who have had it done to themselves become strong advocates for its continuance. That is sad, but true. The right of one dominant culture to criticise or to try to stop a practice of another minority culture is rightly a subject for debate. Germaine Greer famously entered the debate when she compared FGM to cosmetic surgery carried out on American women and questioned our right to sit in judgment on other cultures. Our hearings, however, concluded very firmly that respect for other cultures should not include condoning or ignoring practices that abuse and deny human rights. Personally, I believe that cultures are sacrosanct only if they are consistent with human rights.
	One of the witnesses at our hearings was Linda Weil-Curiel, an advocate from France who has been responsible for bringing several circumcisers to court in France. She said to us:
	"Torture is not culture . . . if a white child is cut . . . it would cause a scandal. Why should we be quiet if it is a black child? She does not suffer less. She is no less entitled to her physical integrity. You should not . . . make any discrimination between women. What hurts a white child hurts a black child."
	I think that that is very important to remember when dealing with this sensitive issue.
	At the hearings, I asked why she thought that there had been no prosecutions in the UK. "Because you are chicken," she replied. She may have a point. We have had a law banning FGM for more than 15 years but we have had no prosecutions. Yet we know that thousands of girls are at risk here in the UK. Government and NGO workers who are responsible for FGM issues are unclear of the law.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has said, health and social care professionals have an important role to play in addressing FGM in the UK. Clinical staff are much more likely to see examples of FGM in their work, especially if they serve areas with high populations from, for example, east Africa. I am pleased that that British Medical Association has issued new guidance, helping doctors to educate families about the health and legal issues that surround this practice, and ultimately, I hope, preventing girls from being mutilated—even if that means initiating child protection proceedings. Inter-agency co-operation is the key to addressing FGM.
	The NHS has very little data about FGM, largely because it has not set out to look for such data. Our report recommended that the Department of Health should undertake much more data collection and then make use of those data when developing policies. So far, that has not happened. I am aware that the specialist NGO, Forward, has applied to the Department of Health for project grants to collect data on FGM and to address linked practices. I believe that Forward and similar groups are especially well placed to do that work. I have written to the Secretary of State to reiterate the need to obtain accurate data on the prevalence of FGM in the UK as soon as possible. We have also called on the Government to make use of our report when they produce their national sexual health and HIV strategy. I was delighted to see that the strategy states that FGM is
	"illegal, unacceptable, and a violation of human rights".
	It also states that there is a need to raise the awareness and skills of health, education and social services professionals, and acknowledges that local services need to support community initiatives that are aimed at stopping this practice.
	As has already been said, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act entered into force on 16 July 1985, making FGM illegal in the UK. There have been no prosecutions under that law so far. It is vital that this new law is fully implemented and that our Government and agencies work together for the elimination of this practice. A number of recommendations from our hearings have already been acted on but we need to move things further forward in order to combat this harmful and unnecessary attack on women's sexuality and autonomy.
	I am pleased to see that the proposed changes include many recommendations from the hearings—in particular, changing the name of the female circumcision Act 1985 to incorporate the term female genital mutilation; and, very importantly, changing the Act to ensure that UK residents who take girls abroad for FGM can be prosecuted under UK law on their return, regardless of the legal status of FGM in the country where it takes place. Sentences will also be lengthened. This is a serious and abhorrent offence and the length of sentences should reflect that.
	As a matter of policy, I hope that the provisions will extend to all UK residents, including asylum seekers. I note that the Bill does not include anything to do with the monitoring of FGM and the roles of relevant agencies. Important though these issues are, I understand that they are not measures that can be included in this Bill. However, I hope that the Department of Health will look carefully at the need to monitor the incidence of FGM in this country. Legislation alone, as we all know, will not eradicate this practice. The aim of strengthening the law in this way is to send a strong message about the unacceptability of FGM and, we hope, to have a deterrent effect.
	If this Bill does become law, I hope that it will provide a useful springboard for taking forward wider enforcement and education activities. The Agency for Culture and Change Management is, I understand, already organising an FGM conference as a follow-up to this Bill. The all-party group on population, development and reproductive health will certainly support that initiative.
	Today I have focused on the situation and the education needs in the UK. However, our hearings also looked at FGM in the international context. I would like to conclude with a quote from one of our witnesses—a Senegalese village elder and imam called Pa Demba Diawara—who, at the age of 65, and after going on an education programme with a local NGO—Tostan project—to learn to read and write, has worked with his local community to abandon the practice of FGM. Demba gave evidence to our FGM hearings and told us:
	"If I had known what I know now, I would have started 10 years ago. I did not know the amount of suffering our women had gone through. I did not know that the women in the village, who were sterile, had infections after their operations. I did not know that the girls who had died had died because of this practice . . . We men never talked about it. We never asked and we just never knew."
	I hope that this Bill will ensure that more people do ask and do know about FGM so that the practice is abandoned worldwide.

Sandra Gidley: I will try to be brief but I want to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on introducing this Bill because it is exceptionally important. I would also like to put on record my congratulations to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Fifteen years ago, this subject was really unknown and it is a testament to the work that she did that we are here today in an atmosphere of much less opposition to bringing the measures forward.
	Liberal Democrats support this Bill. I welcome especially the change in the name of the legislation from female circumcision to female genital mutilation. Some people are unhappy with the term FGM because they think that it is over-emotive—I do not think that it is. The word "circumcision" seems to give a medical respectability to the issue—although my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who feels very strongly about the issue, would disagree with me on that point. I think that the word "mutilation" sums things up very well.
	It is very important to extend the measures in the original Bill so that people who take children out of the UK for FGM are subject to that legislation. I welcome the fact that the crime is now regarded as more serious. It is a great disappointment that there have been no prosecutions but, if we can keep on raising awareness, I hope that the heavier penalty, combined with that greater awareness, will lead to a reduction in the problem. I also welcome the inclusion of UK residents as well as nationals in the legislation. I share the view of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) that we have to find a way of including people who are in this country temporarily.
	However, there are a number of problems with the Bill that will require further discussion on Second Reading. It is interesting to note that the two male Members who have spoken in this debate have hinted at something regarding older women, but not quite said it. What they may have been referring to, but could not bring themselves to talk about, was the subject of a programme that I recently saw on television called "Designer Vaginas". It was eye-opening—and eye-watering. It illustrated the fact that an increasing body of women in this country are going abroad to have cosmetic surgery to the vaginal area.
	If we think back for a moment to female genital mutilation, this really is a problem of the subjugation of women by men; 'twas ever so. Men wanted to cut bits of female genitalia away so that women would not stray because they did not enjoy sex too much; it kept women in their place. How much of the move towards the designer vagina comes from women? In the media—the magazines and films that pander to the male taste—there is an image of a fairly follically challenged female with a certain style, and women think that there is something wrong with them if they do not look like something out of Playboy. That is obviously rubbish and we should get the message across that women are okay as they are, thank you very much, and do not need to mess about with themselves in that way.
	That observation brings me to an important point, because my understanding of the Bill is that it will make cosmetic surgery to the vaginal area illegal. I have no problem with that, but the issue should definitely be explored in Committee. It is regarded as a choice issue. I do not think that we should make any exceptions for white women expressing a choice for fashion reasons, when we are stopping black women, who may have no choice, perhaps because they are children, from having surgery. We must ensure that no distinction is drawn between these two practices, and it should all be part of the same message. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on whether women undergoing surgery in those circumstances, where there is no medical need, would be covered by the Bill; I believe that they should be.
	FGM is a large-scale problem. The figure of 3,500 has been mentioned, but I have seen work that says that, every year, as many as 7,000 girls under the age of 16 may be at risk of undergoing FGM. We must find a way of targeting those communities at risk. Very few charities are working at the grass roots; I am only aware of four: Rainbo; Forward, which has only two members of staff; the Agency for Culture and Change Management and the London Black Women's Health and Family Support Organisation, which is also suffering from lack of funding. Their work is highly regarded. Change can be achieved only by work in the community. I think that it was the hon. Member for Broxbourne who said that we must ensure that health visitors, school nurses, even teachers, are familiar with the problem, because often a teacher may be the first to become aware of the problem when she realises that a girl is off physical education lessons for a few weeks after a holiday abroad. We must find a way of handling the issue sensitively but, more important, raising awareness so that children are not mutilated in that way in the first place.
	Sarah McCulloch, National Director of the Agency for Culture and Change Management, has argued:
	"New legislation will be most effective if area child protection committees use it proactively. In July last year the Sheffield area child protection committee wrote an open letter to all Somali parents informing them of the health problems associated with FGM and advising them that if they were planning to take their children on holiday for FGM they should reconsider . . . It caused a furore. People were so angry and said we were attacking their culture. But the feedback was that people were afraid and some families cancelled their trip."
	Much has been said about human rights today, but although those are very important, we must also stress the health benefits of not having FGM done. Relevant figures have been mentioned; I will not repeat them, but the health message must be the predominant one, because at the moment this procedure subjects women to increased morbidity in later life.
	I support the Bill. There are some reservations about things that could be reviewed in Committee, but on balance, I am delighted that the legislation is before us today.

Ann Cryer: I have been told that I have two or three minutes, so I simply want to place on record my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and her Bill. Cultural difference must never be accepted as an excuse for the denial of the human rights of vulnerable people, whether we are talking about FGM, forced marriages or honour killings.
	We should also be looking in Committee towards an educational programme in schools where there are children who are perceived to be at risk of FGM. There could be problems there. When I tried to visit schools and talk about the problems of forced marriages, I was not allowed to do so because a majority of the governors were either parents or politically correct people who agreed with parents. I got into one school but was not allowed into two others.
	I am a member of the Council of Europe equal opportunities committee, and two years ago in Paris we held a hearing on this subject. It was the most squirm-making meeting that I have ever attended; it was hideous. Victims, doctors, gynaecologists and social workers were there. It was the first time that I was aware of the horror of FGM.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) that, on some issues, perhaps we should not be put off by charges of cultural insensitivity. Sometimes I feel as though I want to rejoice in cultural insensitivity, especially when it is about FGM and forced marriages, since, as my hon. Friend says, cultural differences can only be sacrosanct when they respect human rights.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue in the House this morning. I offer my personal and my party's congratulations to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on her choice of subject for the Bill. I also recognise the sensitivity of the issue, given that we are talking about some deeply held, traditional cultural practices, which affect some of the most vulnerable groups in society, but I commend the way in which the hon. Lady has approached this subject over many years. Standing here at the Dispatch Box, I feel that I have been here before in other debates on women's issues with the women in the Chamber. I hope that the Bill makes progress today.
	I take this chance to acknowledge the work of colleagues from all parties on the all-party parliamentary group on population development and reproductive health, under the formidable chairmanship of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who has spoken again with fluency this morning. The group has been very active over the past few years in lobbying and drawing attention to the issue of FGM. I also pay tribute to the commitment of some of our Conservative colleagues in that group: my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who make a great contribution as well.
	The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who spoke so briefly—I wish that she had spoken for longer—is a well-known champion against forced marriages and I join her in that campaign. I wish her more power and more access to the communities where she can convey her message.
	Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) is second to none in her contribution to this debate and to stopping the abhorrent practice of FGM. She has made a unique contribution over many years and continues to spread the message at home and abroad about this utterly dreadful procedure.
	I think that we are all in agreement that FGM is a serious problem, demanding an effective multi-agency response. All forms of FGM are mutilating and carry serious health risks. However, the immediate and long-term health consequences of FGM vary according to the type and severity of the procedure performed. The immediate and short-term health implications include severe pain and shock, tetanus and other infections, extensive damage to the external reproductive system, vaginal and pelvic infections, and even immediate fatal haemorrhaging. Last but not least, there may be psychological damage. As we have heard, FGM can also cause complications later on in pregnancy and childbirth, including an increased risk of stillbirth or haemorrhaging from internal tearing. It doubles the risk of the mother's death in childbirth and increases by three or four times the risk of the child being stillborn.
	The roots of FGM are complex and numerous; indeed, it has not been possible to determine when or where the tradition originated. However, I agree with earlier speakers that it is not, as is sometimes stated, an Islamic issue. The practice of FGM crosses religious, ethnic and cultural lines. In cultures where it is an accepted norm, it is practised by followers of all religious beliefs, as well as by animists and non-believers.
	FGM is carried out for sociological reasons, such as initiating girls into womanhood in their society, and sometimes for misguided religious reasons. It is carried out for dangerously misunderstood hygiene and aesthetic reasons, and to lower female sexual desire, to maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and to increase male sexual pleasure. Ironically, it may also be believed to enhance fertility and chances of child survival, which is certainly not the case. What is clear is that those varied reasons stem from traditional power inequalities and the ensuring compliance of women to the dictates of their communities.
	We have all heard about the excellent work in this area of NGOs, charities and even magazines, but the issue is about the beliefs and position of women in society, and it is about the expectations, and often the role, of men. It is often about sheer ignorance, particularly of the dangers of the practice. I, too, was moved by the words of the Senegalese village leader who addressed the all-party parliamentary group. He said:
	"We men never talked about it. We never asked and we just never knew."
	Above all, however, this issue is about children. FGM, with its serious and sometimes devastating consequences, is carried out on children from when they are only a few days old into adolescence. Girls aged between five and 10 are particularly at risk from that damaging mutilation, which is performed for cultural reasons that they cannot yet understand. Like the hon. Member for Calder Valley, I was impressed by the French advocate who said in her evidence to the all-party group:
	"What hurts a white child hurts a black child."
	There lies the heart of the argument, and some uncertainty.
	FGM is child abuse, and as such requires carefully planned and sensitive interventions into the family situation. Health practitioners and the organisation Forward, which has been mentioned, do valuable work in campaigning against that practice among African communities in Britain. However, they believe that FGM is a significant and growing problem in the United Kingdom, and we will fail to tackle it unless we ensure that agencies are equipped to deal with it.
	I was alarmed to read the evidence given to the all-party group by Dr. Faith Mwaangi-Powell of Forward, in which she said:
	"Yesterday I was speaking to a social worker from Leicester. She told me she had a case of a mother with two girls who were both four weeks old. The mother was intending to have them circumcised and she"—
	the social worker—
	"was asking what she could do. She is terrified; she does not even want to talk to the woman."
	We must ensure that our agencies are equipped to deal with the problem here in our own backyard.
	In 1985, Parliament legislated to outlaw FGM. Under that Act, it is an offence to carry out FGM or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the performance of FGM by another person. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The only exceptions are cases in which a surgical operation is necessary for the physical or mental health of the person on which it is performed, and cases in which such surgery is performed on a person who is in any stage of labour or has just given birth, and it is performed for purposes connected with that labour or birth. Those exceptions are valid only when the procedures are carried out by an appropriately registered medical practitioner.
	As several Members have said, however, to date there have been no prosecutions under the 1985 Act. France has the best record, with between 20 and 25 prosecutions having been undertaken. There, notably, children at risk are checked out at school for evidence of FGM. We should consider adding such a provision to the Bill, if possible. In this country, two doctors have been struck off for serious professional misconduct in carrying out, or offering to carry out, FGM. As has been said, the lack of prosecutions here is largely because people under pressure from their family or community are reluctant to give evidence.
	The first question that we must ask is whether the Bill will increase the likelihood of successful prosecutions for FGM in Britain. I am afraid that on that point I remain unconvinced. There are already great difficulties in communicating the law to immigrant communities, and there are further difficulties in taking action to protect girls from this practice. An increase in the maximum penalty is likely to be academic if knowledge of the offence is poor and prosecution remains almost impossible.
	That is why any legislation on this issue must be accompanied by work with communities to explain the law and address their knowledge and beliefs. If the Government want to strengthen provisions against people who carry out FGM, they must also ensure that community-based local strategies provide education and support. Several grassroots community organisations and interest groups, such as Forward, which has often been mentioned, are best placed to deliver those strategies. I call on the Minister to pledge his support for those organisations and to reaffirm the need to address underlying cultural attitudes if the law is to have a role in promoting change.
	The Bill also seeks to address the issue of UK-based families organising to send girls abroad so that FGM can be performed on them. Under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 it is an offence for parents to take their daughters abroad to have them mutilated if FGM is also an offence in the country to which they are travelling. However, the Act is of no use in cases where FGM is not illegal in the destination country.
	Today, we are debating measures that will introduce a new offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate a girl's genitalia overseas. That is intended to cover the situation where a family resident in the UK arranges for a girl to be taken overseas to have FGM performed. However, it applies only where the girl concerned is a UK national or permanent resident. Forward has pointed out that it does not cover those who are newly arrived in Britain, which includes many of those at most risk. That will give rise to a fundamental inequality in the rights and protections of African girls in Britain, with one rule for those who have gained UK nationality and another for those waiting for immigration decisions. Forward wants the Bill to be amended so that it offers protection to all girls, irrespective of nationality, as has been done in other countries, such as Norway, as I am sure that the Minister is aware.
	It is important to note what is not covered by the Bill. It does not require health professionals and other relevant authorities to report incidences of FGM. It does not touch on Department of Health issues such as ensuring that all medical personnel are trained in cultural sensitivity and how to meet the needs of women who have undergone FGM. It does not cover the practicalities and difficulties in social services taking action under the Children Act 1989 or child protection procedures, which I know is a big issue. I mention all those areas because they were raised in the recommendations made by the all-party group in its report of November 2000.
	I welcome the Bill. It is a valuable opportunity to improve the protection of girls and women in the UK from FGM. It is a welcome reflection of the importance of this issue and the seriousness with which it deserves to be treated. However, further reflections and concerns need to be addressed in Committee to ensure that the Bill offers the best possible way of tackling the issue. I hope that the Government will assist its passage, and not block it at any later stages. I wish the Bill well, as I believe that it will improve the condition of women and halt an abhorrent practice.

Hilary Benn: First, I join the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) not only on her success in the ballot, but, much more importantly, on choosing to give priority to this very important measure. I also congratulate her on the powerful case that she put for the Bill in her opening remarks. As she rightly says, FGM is a brutal practice that is illegal in this country, thanks to the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which was promoted—indeed, pioneered—by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and supported by my hon. Friend, among others, at that time.
	I also join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who has played such an important role in the work of that organisation. Like other hon. Members, I learned a great deal from reading the report published as a result of the hearings that were undertaken in 2000.
	The Government condemn this practice and want to see it eradicated both here and abroad. That is why we warmly welcome the Bill. Indeed, the Home Secretary has said this morning that we would have wished to bring forward Government legislation if this private Member's Bill had not been tabled. That indicates the Government's commitment to the issue.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley has said, the extent to which FGM is practised in this country is not known. People who practice it tend to live in closed communities and offences are rarely reported to the authorities. However, in theory, all young girls in the practising communities in this country are at risk of FGM. That is why it is vital that the law should protect them.
	The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 was an important and welcome step in the fight against FGM, as it made it clear that the practice would not be tolerated in this country. However, as we now know, particularly because of the work of the all-party group and others, the law needs to go further because evidence suggests that parents in some communities are evading the 1985 Act, by taking their daughters abroad for FGM.
	Indeed, last year, the Agency for Culture and Change Management in Sheffield—one of the groups, as we have heard, that is working very hard to eliminate the practice—informed the Home Secretary that it had received increasing numbers of reports of families planning visits to their countries of origin, with the intention of having FGM carried out on their daughters. That is why the Bill is so important: it will assist in dealing with that by making it an offence for United Kingdom nationals and permanent UK residents to aid and abet FGM undertaken outside the UK by anyone, including foreign nationals, although the offence will be limited sometimes to cases where the victim is a UK national or permanent UK resident.
	Hon. Members will want to recognise the fact that the Bill represents a significant extension of the present law because it will go a step beyond the current established international practice that dual criminality is normally needed—namely, the practice needs to be an offence in both countries to apply extra-territoriality—but I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley has chosen to do so because of the nature of that abhorrent practice.
	We all recognise—we have heard so this morning—that FGM is deeply steeped in the culture and tradition of those communities that practise it. We are not in the business of preaching and imposing our culture on others, but we must be absolutely clear in setting values that are built on justice, equality of the sexes and human rights. We regard the genital mutilation of any girl or female infant as unacceptable, regardless of her ethnic origin.
	Of course, as we have touched on during the debate, a degree of sensitivity is needed in efforts to educate about the practice, but we cannot ignore the basic truth that it is unacceptable and wrong. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), when a Home Office Minister, said in the context of forced marriage, which is another unacceptable practice, that cultural sensitivity should not be an excuse for moral blindness. That applies equally to FGM. That gives me the chance to pay tribute to the work done on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer).
	The straight truth is that we would not tolerate our daughters being mutilated in that way, so we should not tolerate anyone else's daughter being forced to undergo that brutal practice. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was absolutely right to talk about the importance of terminology. The Bill describes the practice for what it is, and I am sure that the House will welcome that.
	The Government agree with all those hon. Members who have made the point that female genital mutilation is not associated with any particular religion or ethnic group. We recognise instead that such mutilation affects some people in certain communities. It is not called for by any religious scripture, and there is now widespread support among religious and community leaders in the campaign to prevent it from taking place.
	It may be helpful if I say that, in the Government's view, the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Assuming that article 8—on private and family life—is engaged, any interference with the right would be justified by article 8.2, as it would be proportionate to the aims of protecting health and the rights and freedoms of others.
	As many hon. Members have said, legislation alone cannot eradicate the practice—it sends a message, marks our abhorrence and creates a penalty—but FGM will be eradicated only if we change the way that people think about it. That needs a continuous programme of education.
	The Department of Health helps to fund the voluntary organisation, Forward, of which we have heard so much. Of course, Forward provides information and advice to health, education, child protection and social services professionals. The current core grant funding for Forward is £40,000 in each of the three years to 2004–05, which is an increase on the £25,000 in previous years. It will receive £25,000 for each of the next three years for its "positive partnership with communities" project. Among other things, that project will seek to collect data on the extent of FGM—a point made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
	The Home Office has also recently agreed to provide funding for the Agency for Culture and Change Management, of which we have also heard a great deal, as it takes forward its work to combat FGM.
	The opposition to FGM also has the support of the medical community. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the two doctors who were struck off, which shows that that concern is being taken seriously.
	I want to refer to the work that we are doing internationally, because it is not enough just to act at home, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to that. That is why the Department for International Development has been so involved in work to reduce the incidence and consequences of FGM. Since 1997, we have committed more than £1.2 million specifically to that work because the more that we can empower and encourage women in their own countries to change the practice and other people's attitudes towards it, the more successful we will be.
	In conclusion, the Bill is a welcome and necessary part of the wider campaign to eradicate FGM in this country and abroad. The Government support it unreservedly, and I commend it to the House.

Ann Clwyd: With the leave of the House, I wish to say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, the Home Secretary and all his officials for all the encouragement that they have given me in introducing the Bill. I thank all colleagues who have spoken so eloquently today, particularly for telling us about their own experiences in certain countries and for giving examples of people who have given testimony to several committees. I also thank all the non-governmental organisations that have given us very valuable evidence. Female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice. It cannot be supported on cultural, medical or any other grounds, and we have sent out a very strong message from the House of Commons today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Iraq

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about military action in Iraq.
	British forces have been heavily engaged in maritime, land and air operations overnight. Those operations are continuing, and I know the House will understand why I cannot give all the details at this stage.
	I regret that I have to confirm that a United States CH-46 helicopter carrying British and United States personnel crashed in Kuwait, close to the border with Iraq. There were a number of fatalities. A recovery team is at the site of the crash. Our urgent priority is to confirm the identities of those who died and notify the next of kin at the earliest opportunity. The cause of the incident is being investigated, but I can assure the House that it was not the result of enemy action. I recognise that this will be of little comfort to the families of those killed. I hope that the House will understand why we will not issue further details until next of kin have been informed.
	That helicopter was engaged in an operation led by 3 Commando Brigade on the al-Faw peninsula in south-eastern Iraq. It began with an assault on the southern tip of the peninsula, using support helicopters from Kuwait and from the Amphibious Task Group in the north Arabian Gulf. The tip of the peninsula was secured as planned by 40 Commando Royal Marines, and without damage to the oil infrastructure, averting any attempt by the regime to cause an environmental disaster in the Gulf. Some resistance, including the use of mortars and artillery, has been encountered, and there was a small-scale engagement with individual Iraqi troops resulting in four known Iraqi fatalities.
	Importantly, most of the oil infrastructure on the peninsula has been secured intact. I can, however, confirm reports that the Iraqi regime has set fire to a number of oil wells. Our latest information is that up to 30 oil wells are alight, among hundreds in southern Iraq. A primary aim of our current operations is to prevent further opportunities for such deliberate destruction, and to enable remedial action to be taken as soon as is practical. The security of Iraq's oil infrastructure will, of course, be a key factor in enabling the Iraqi people to rebuild their country.
	At 0430 hours this morning, coalition ground forces including elements under the command of 3 Commando Brigade commenced an operation to seize the port of Umm Qasr and a nearby naval base. In addition, this morning, 42 Commando were deployed by British aircraft to a blocking position north of al-Faw. Throughout that operation, Royal Navy ships including HMS Chatham and Marlborough provided naval gunfire support to 3 Commando Brigade. Umm Qasr, which is roughly equivalent in size to Southampton, will be vital to the economic future of southern Iraq. Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels are on stand-by to conduct mine clearance operations to provide a secure shipping route into the port and allow an inflow of humanitarian supplies. Although action is continuing, we expect Umm Qasr to be fully under coalition control shortly.
	In addition to the al-Faw operation, coalition land operations across the Kuwait-Iraq border are well under way. Preparatory action began yesterday afternoon using fixed-wing and rotary air forces and artillery. At 1715 hours yesterday, the 5th US Regimental Combat Team launched operations to secure the South Rumaila oilfield and gas and oil platforms in southern Iraq.
	At 0300 hours this morning, the main land offensive began with coalition forces advancing across the Kuwait-Iraq border. Two battle groups of 7th Armoured Brigade are providing flank protection as part of that assault. We understand that stiff resistance has been encountered, and that 7th Armoured Brigade has engaged in contact with Iraqi forces.
	Turning to air operations, at 1800 hours yesterday, 50 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles were launched at regime targets in Baghdad closely associated with Saddam Hussein. A number of missiles were launched from Royal Navy submarines, and we believe that all hit their regime targets. A large number of RAF aircraft, including combat and support aircraft, have been active during the past 24 hours, including Tornado GR4s using Enhanced Paveway 2 precision munitions.
	I am now able to give further details on yesterday's attacks by Iraqi forces. Between 0720 and 1510 hours yesterday, Iraq launched at least five missiles of various types into Kuwait in the vicinity of coalition forces. Three landed and two were intercepted by Patriot missiles. Fortunately, there were no injuries. Troops did, however, put on their nuclear, biological and chemical equipment as a precautionary measure.
	It is less than 24 hours since these operations were launched. They are making steady progress. Our objectives remain as set out in the document placed in the Library of the House yesterday: to remove the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people and will continue to take every precaution to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. As the helicopter crash has demonstrated, however, our own people are always at risk in a military operation. I pay tribute to the courage of those who tragically lost their lives last night. Our thoughts are with their families, and we hope for the safe return of all their colleagues.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, for keeping the House so fully informed and for giving me sight of his statement in advance.
	The news of casualties this morning is the news that we all feared most, but it is inevitable in any such conflict. Of course, there will be an inquiry following such an accident, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could reiterate the assurance that he has already given me privately that there are no concerns about the airworthiness of the American CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter. The whole House, of course, joins him in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones.
	This must, however, do nothing but strengthen our resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq. As we hear this morning of the regime in Baghdad ordering the armed forces of Iraq on suicide missions under pain of torture for their families, can there be any doubt that those men died for a noble cause?
	I have a few questions of which I have given the Secretary of State prior notice. First, a large number of oil wells have now been fired by the regime in southern Iraq. Is there any doubt that those are the desperate acts of a desperate regime? Does not that underline the need to capture the oil wells as quickly as possible, to preserve the ecology of Iraq and to enable the economic infrastructure to remain in place to enable the reconstruction of Iraq as soon as hostilities have ended?
	Secondly, we hear continued speculation about yesterday's early raids on the regime, and this morning the Iraqi Information Minister has protested, "Saddam is safe". I wonder whether the Secretary of State is in a position to enlarge on the speculation that is taking place.
	Thirdly, yesterday, I asked briefly about relations with Turkey, and the decision of the Turkish Parliament to enable the mobilisation of Turkish forces. It was welcome news that some Kurdish forces have been placed under coalition command. Will the Secretary of State say whether it is the objective to place Turkish forces, too, under coalition command, to enable stability to ensue?
	Finally, I congratulate the Government on the steady progress that they are making with this action. We join the Secretary of State in wishing our forces well.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and his support. Obviously, there will be a thorough investigation into the causes of this tragic crash, and I will report to the House in due course as to what we are able to establish. I have no doubts at present about the airworthiness of this particular aircraft.
	As I made clear, the firing of oil wells is something that we anticipated and feared, and something that has driven the strategic objectives of the early phase of the military action. Clearly, those are the desperate attempts of the regime to destroy the wealth of Iraq, which should be benefiting Iraq's people. Clearly, our continuing operations in the south are designed to ensure that that wealth is preserved for the benefit of people in that country.
	As regards the continuing speculation about Saddam Hussein, the only clear evidence of his continuing to be alive is in the form of a television broadcast. There seems to be a great deal of controversy as to whether it was Saddam Hussein in that broadcast, and analysis continues as to whether it was him or one of the many body doubles that we know that he has used in the past.
	We are still having detailed discussions with Turkey, which are positive and encouraging. We believe that it will make an effective contribution to our campaign in northern Iraq.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for returning to the House so soon after his statement yesterday; it is entirely right that he should do so.
	The report that members of 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, with US colleagues, have been killed in action is indeed news that chills us all. Does the Secretary of State agree that despite the best training and all the precautions, in war, accidents do happen? It was the House of Commons that authorised the action, and the families of those who have died, their comrades in arms, their commanders and the Secretary of State should know that our thoughts are with them today.
	On the wider news overnight, I especially welcome the news that coalition forces are securing the oilfields to prevent Saddam's forces from setting them alight. We all hope that that will help to avert an environmental catastrophe of the sort we saw in Kuwait 10 years ago.
	On Turkey, will the Secretary of State clarify the overflight rights? It was suggested this morning that the arrangements might have changed. Still on the subject of Turkey, will he reiterate the Government's commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq's borders?
	Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the missiles fired yesterday by Iraq at Kuwait were Scud or al-Samoud missiles? I am sure that we would like to know.
	I, too, pay tribute to the courage of our armed forces in the Gulf. Our thoughts are with them and their families at home.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I emphasise that of the hundreds of oil wells in southern Iraq, a relatively small number—about 30—have been set on fire to date. That emphasises the importance to us of securing that part of Iraq for the long-term benefit of the people of that country.
	We are continuing to discuss with Turkey the nature of overflight rights. The Turkish authorities are being positive and helpful, which we welcome.
	As set out in our military objectives, contained in a statement that I placed in the Library yesterday, we are absolutely committed to the territorial integrity of Iraq. We want Iraq to be quickly restored to its rightful place in the international community.
	As for missile types, a number of different missiles were used. Analysis to determine their exact nature is continuing, not least because two were comprehensively destroyed by Patriot missiles.

Gerald Kaufman: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in so far as it is compatible with the attainment of military objectives, it is our policy to maintain as intact as possible the public utilities infrastructure in Iraq to avoid causing unnecessary hardship to the Iraqi population and so that, when hostilities are concluded, it will be easier to rebuild the lives of the people of Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making an excellent point, one that I sought to emphasise yesterday. I recognise that when they hear the number of munitions involved in bombing campaigns, many right hon. and hon. Members immediately think of the type of bombing campaign conducted in the second world war, in which utilities were targeted. This will be a very different type of campaign, aimed at regime targets in and around Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. Certainly, in our preparation of the campaign, we have had clear regard to the need to rebuild Iraq thereafter. I give my right hon. Friend the assurance that, wherever possible, we will avoid striking any target that is of long-term benefit to the people of Iraq.

John Wilkinson: I associate myself with the expressions of deep condolence to the families of the Royal Marines who have lost their lives in what seems to have been a tragic helicopter accident, as well as the families of the United States aircrew who also lost their lives.
	Can the Secretary of State tell us what Spanish forces are being deployed to the theatre? The press is suggesting that naval units and medical units are to be deployed to the Gulf and an air defence squadron to Turkey. Will he say what forces the Australians are committing? The press say that Australian forces are in action alongside those of the United States and the United Kingdom. Is it not the case that when the bullets begin to fly, we know who our true friends are?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the fact that the helicopter involved had both US and UK personnel on board, demonstrating the joint nature of the operations and how closely together our marine forces operate.
	On Spain and its forces, discussions are under way and decisions are anticipated in Spain, but I do not think it is appropriate to comment further at this stage. However, I can confirm that Australian forces are engaged in military operations.

Shaun Woodward: It is being widely reported that, in yesterday's indiscriminate attacks on the population of Kuwait, Saddam's military used two Scud missiles. Given the UN resolution that clearly prohibits the use of Scud missiles, and given the fact that as recently as December the Iraqi regime was telling Hans Blix's people that it had no operational Scuds, can the Secretary of State confirm or deny whether Scuds were used and what the significance would be of finding that Scuds are still being used operationally by the Iraqi regime?

Geoff Hoon: As I indicated earlier, analysis to determine the exact nature of the missiles used by Iraqi forces against Kuwait is under way. Inevitably, there is little left of two of them, which is not assisting, but that work will continue to establish the point that I anticipate will be made and that my hon. Friend has made today. I have no doubt that, as events unfold, we will see just how dishonest the Iraqi regime has been with the international community.

Crispin Blunt: May I return to the small but important symbolic point I raised with the Secretary of State yesterday? There were reports this morning that the stars and stripes were flying over Umm Qasr to indicate that it had been successfully captured, which I think sends out an unfortunate signal about the nature of the operation. It would be singularly unfortunate if the stars and stripes were, for example, planted over the parliament building in Baghdad at some future stage of operations. In the full understanding of their attachment to their flag, I wonder whether the Secretary of State can find time to make representations to our American colleagues about the importance of symbols and the nature of the operation.

Geoff Hoon: I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he made the same point yesterday, although we have to understand the way in which, at the end of a vigorous confrontation, any soldiers are likely to feel the need to demonstrate their success. I suspect that that is what happened overnight. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I will ensure that it is passed on.

Linda Gilroy: The Secretary of State will know that 3 Commando Brigade is based at Stonehouse barracks in my constituency. I join him in paying tribute to the professionalism and sheer dedication of the men and in sending condolences to the families of those who have been lost. Will he urge that the families get information as quickly as possible? Many families in Devon and Cornwall are anxious.
	May I share my concern about reports this morning from Plymouth suggesting that the some of the national press are doorstepping the families—[Hon. Members: "Disgraceful."] That might be rumour, but will my right hon. Friend urge journalists to treat people in a respectful and appropriate manner?

Geoff Hoon: I have had the privilege of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency and meeting her constituents, many of whom serve in Her Majesty's armed forces. They will all be deeply affected by the tragedy that has occurred. I can only endorse her observations about the need for the press to behave responsibly in these very difficult times.

Patrick Mercer: I join the House in expressing sympathy for both the American casualties and the British casualties from 3 Commando Brigade. I know the brigade well and am sure that this setback will serve to stiffen their resolve rather than to weaken it.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are enough reserves in place to take the place both of casualties and of exhausted units, and that training has started of forces to follow on once the fighting has finished to carry out reconstruction work and form the garrisons that will inevitably be required?

Geoff Hoon: I can give that confirmation. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, training has not been affected by the current deployments to Iraq or by our commitment to provide emergency fire cover should that prove necessary. Clearly, however, those factors have to be reviewed regularly, and I assure him that I shall report to the House if there are any such difficulties—but I emphasise that there are not at present.

Harry Barnes: May I associate myself fully with the sympathy that has been expressed to the families of the troops who died in the helicopter disaster? That has a particularly meaning for me, because I visited al-Faw when I was in the forces in Iraq as a young man.
	Why has the Secretary of State made no mention of the B-52 bombers that, according to reports, have now left Fairford? Is he aware that B-52s were used extensively to attack Basra during the Gulf war, flattening whole hosts of working-class areas in the town and killing many people. How will we be assured that this will not happen on this occasion?

Geoff Hoon: Coalition operations are clearly continuing. I made that clear in my statement, and I do not think that any Member of the House would expect me to anticipate the nature of those operations save to say that whatever targets are addressed will be targets associated with Saddam Hussein's regime. I made that clear yesterday to the House, and I repeat it again today. We will not engage in indiscriminate so-called carpet bombing. Each of the targets will be individually addressed and attacked.

John Greenway: The commencement of military operations has provoked a number of demonstrations in this country. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell us whether the Home Secretary intends to issue to guidance to chief constables and the Commissioner of Police about the policing of our streets if, as seems likely, more protests take place? Does the Secretary of State not agree that we preserve the right to peaceful protest in this country—something that the people of Iraq do not enjoy—and that it does not seem appropriate that the police, who do more than anyone else to ensure that people can protest peacefully, should be rewarded with the kind of assaults and attacks that we saw here in London yesterday, or that the people of this country should suffer the dislocation of their normal life that occurred?

Geoff Hoon: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very effective policing that we saw yesterday. I thought the police maintained an excellent balance between the need to allow people to protest lawfully and legitimately and allowing right hon. and hon. Members access to the House, and the ordinary people of London and other cities to go about their lives in their normal way.

Glenda Jackson: I would like to add my comments to the sympathies that have already been expressed in the House to the families of those brave young men whose lives have been so tragically and, in my view, somewhat needlessly, lost.
	Kuwaiti officials have categorically averred that no Scud missiles were launched in the attack yesterday, but that they were, in fact, the al-Samoud missiles that were in the process of being destroyed before weapons inspectors were somewhat peremptorily withdrawn from Iraq. When will we be able to know who is giving us the proper detailed information as to what precisely those missiles were?

Geoff Hoon: May I strongly resist the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that those lives were needlessly lost? Those young men were engaged on important operations in carrying through the military objectives of the United Kingdom and its coalition allies. I pay tribute to the contribution that they made and that their colleagues are continuing to make. I assure my hon. Friend that, if she were to speak to their families and to those men's colleagues, she would find that they are proud of what those men achieved. They would strongly resist her observation.
	I have said all I can at this stage about the nature of those missiles. I do not intend to repeat it again.

David Laws: The Secretary of State will be well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I have about 450 constituents from the Yeovilton air base serving as part of the helicopter forces in and around Iraq. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating them on the important and often very difficult work that they are doing? In the light of the optimistic comments that Admiral Kelly has made this morning, can the Secretary of State give us, at what is admittedly an early stage, his overall assessment of the progress of the operation to date?

Geoff Hoon: I have had the opportunity of visiting Yeovilton on more than one occasion, and I pay tribute to the excellent work that is conducted and to the forces who have been deployed from there to the Gulf. I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to make an overall assessment other than to say that things are going very well and that we are continuing operations that are consistent with our overall military objectives. Clearly, in the light of what has occurred, we should be cautious and recognise the risks that our armed forces are undergoing and continue to support them in the determined work that they are carrying out.

Ann Clwyd: May I add my sympathies to the many expressions of sympathy that have been made today?
	I spoke late last night to friends of mine in northern Iraq. They welcome the military intervention and there is already celebration of that in northern Iraq. At the same time, however, they are deeply concerned about the possibility that the Turks, will once again cross their borders, make for Kirkuk and not go away. That is a strong feeling, so I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give the people in that area assurances as soon as possible that the Turks will not be able to stay in northern Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has done more than most over the years to highlight the appalling threat to the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and, indeed, elsewhere. It is important to recognise that there are a variety of risks. I have talked of the risks faced by individual servicemen and servicewomen, and we have seen some of the consequences of that. There are also strategic risks. However, I emphasise to the House—I know that everyone will support this—that these risks are worth taking to achieve a better strategic situation and a safer and more secure place in the world for the people of Iraq and for the wider international community.

James Gray: Everyone will, of course, accept precisely what the Secretary of State has said about keeping the identity and the units of the people tragically killed in the helicopter crash secret until such time as their next of kin have been informed. However, will he go further than that and accept that even the identity of the nature of the service—Navy, Army, Air Force or Marines—being put out on the airwaves causes families unnecessary anxiety? Could he not take steps to make sure that no hint as to those men's identity is given until such time as their next of kin have been informed?

Geoff Hoon: Clearly, there is always a balance to be struck. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In the context of the House of Commons, it is a very sensible point, but unfortunately, given the nature of the modern media, it is extremely difficult to control the kind of speculation that takes place. However, he is right to the extent that many families of many service personnel from right across the country will be worried about the events that have taken place. It is my responsibility to ensure that those who are directly affected hear the news first from the Ministry of Defence rather than from elsewhere.

George Galloway: Now that the officer class on the two main Front Benches has been joined by the sad sacks of the Liberal Democrats who have deserted at the first time whiff of grapeshot, there is an iron-clad consensus in the House in support of this war. But that is not, of course, the case in the country. How does the Secretary of State explain to our armed forces the fact that, for the first time in history, the actions—not the soldiers—that he has ordered them to take are not supported by the majority of the British people, as is shown by the demonstrations all over the country yesterday and will be shown again by the demonstrations in London, Glasgow and elsewhere tomorrow?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raised precisely the same point with me yesterday, and I defended his right to protest as I defend the right of anyone to protest against the decisions taken by the Government. That is essential to the values that underpin why we are all here. As I said to him yesterday, his protests—sincerely held though they are—would have been much stronger if, on the opportunities that he has had to go to Baghdad, he had protested publicly about the need to allow the opposition to speak in Iraq rather than to have their tongues cut out when they protest.

Jonathan Djanogly: The establishment of the southern beachhead is very welcome, not least because of the avoidance of the mass environmental damage that could have been caused by the pumping of oil into the sea. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked about the capture of the oilfields, but will the Secretary of State address the question of what we will do with the burning oilfields? Will he explain the arrangements that are being put in place to minimise the damage to the environment?

Geoff Hoon: We have a number of specialists available who, as soon as their safety and security can be guaranteed, will start work immediately on putting out the fires and ensuring that those oil facilities are made available for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Shona McIsaac: I wish to add my voice to the sympathies that have been expressed about those who were lost in that tragic accident. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) is, no doubt, having a difficult time at the moment in her constituency.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that if bombs are falling on Baghdad, the people of that city will feel that they are being targeted? What steps are being taken to reassure Iraqi civilians that our war is not against them, but against a barbarous, tyrannical regime?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her expression of sympathy. On the bombing campaign in Baghdad, I anticipate that the great majority of people there will see for themselves the nature of the targeting. It will be clear that regime targets—Saddam's Ministries and palaces—are being destroyed. As the campaign evolves, there will be no clearer message to the people of Iraq that we have no quarrel with them, but that we do have a serious difference with Saddam Hussein.

Bill Wiggin: May I start by associating myself with the comments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)? May I also thank the Secretary of State for mentioning the mine countermeasure vessel, HMS Ledbury, named after the town in my constituency?
	What steps does the Secretary of State propose to take on the media coverage of events? Some of it is helpful, but some could be detrimental, especially to the special forces who are drawn from my constituency.

Geoff Hoon: I indicated earlier and also yesterday the nature of the modern 24-hour media. From the opportunities that I have had to follow the television reporting of events, I believe that journalists have by and large behaved responsibly. Clearly we have some concerns, but in general they have observed the rules set for them.

Ian Davidson: May I associate myself and my constituency with the expression of regret for the forces who have been lost? All of us who participated in the armed forces scheme were impressed by the dedication and courage of our servicemen and servicewomen.
	Will the Minister clarify how wide the coalition is? How many countries are participating in the military action and how many have forces who are currently engaged in action? Have any commitments been given to Turkey on her post-war role should she participate, as she now apparently is, in military action?

Geoff Hoon: In fact the number of countries that are providing political and practical support to the coalition is increasing by the day. I mentioned the figure yesterday of at least 30, but the revised figure is at least 40. That support is being given in a range of ways. As I said, I am very encouraged by positive discussions with Turkey. As a NATO ally, we would expect it to be of assistance.

Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Secretary of State to consider the future not just of Iraq, but of our servicemen? Many ex-servicemen served in Iraq in the earlier war and many who are serving there now will retire. If they retire to France, they will get inflation-proof pension increases, but if they retire to, say, Australia, they will not. That is manifestly unfair and I hope that he will consider that in time.

Geoff Hoon: I am well aware of the anomaly that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights. It is something that we continue to consider.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Secretary of State back to the issue of Turkey? Yesterday the Turkish Grand National Assembly passed two resolutions, one of which was on over-flying rights. The second allowed Turkish armed forces, under Turkish command, to cross the frontier into Iraq. Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that there is no agreement with Turkey that its forces can cross into Iraq or that it will be allowed to occupy in any way, or stay for any time at all, in the Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Iraq? There is real fear among the Kurdish community in this country, all over Europe and, of course, in Iraq and Turkey itself about the activities of the Turkish army. We need that important issue clarified.

Geoff Hoon: I spoke earlier about the continuing discussions with Turkey on over-flying rights and the importance of Turkish forces showing restraint. However, I emphasise to my hon. Friend that Turkey shares our view that what is of paramount importance is respect for the territorial integrity of Iraq. That is as important to Turkey as it is to the United Kingdom.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the media coverage, the Secretary of State may have seen reports that coalition forces could be in Baghdad in three or four days. Does he agree that exaggerated claims of success in the media will distress the families of service personnel and lead to unrealistic expectations of when their relatives may come home? I worked in Baghdad in 1982 and know that taking the city could be difficult. Every building is designed to have a bunker underneath it and it could take a long time to take people out if they try to resist.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points, which I endorse, as I tried to do yesterday. I do not believe that it is sensible to overplay expectations, not least because of the risks faced by our servicemen and servicewomen.

Mike Hall: I join colleagues in offering my condolences to the families and friends of those people who lost their lives in the Gulf yesterday. Last night, I watched my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister address the nation on the reasons for military action in Iraq. May I stress to the Secretary of State that it is important that we maintain a direct link with the British public to ensure that they are fully informed about what the Government are doing, with the support of the Opposition, to bring about a swift conclusion to the hostilities in Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: Whatever view people may have taken in the past about the appropriateness or otherwise of military operations to support the international community's decisions on Saddam Hussein's regime and weapons of mass destruction, there is now strong support for the actions taken by British forces.

Alice Mahon: The Secretary of State knows that the American Government will do anything to avoid their citizens going back in body bags, and I hope that our Government would take the same view. However, does the fact that B-52s have left RAF Fairford mean that "operation shock and awe" is going to take place? If it does, how will we avoid killing civilians in such a massive dropping of ordnance on urban areas?

Geoff Hoon: As I told the House yesterday, inevitably there are risks to civilians, but the efforts taken by the UK, the United States and elsewhere to target the campaign accurately against regime targets continue. Although I cannot give a guarantee that civilians will not be affected, I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no ambition whatever to target civilians. Our quarrel is with the regime in Iraq and our targets are designed accordingly.

John Mann: Like me, many of my constituents have friends and family in the services. The one issue that has been raised with me most in recent days is a small, but important, concern relating to packages sent to loved ones. What arrangements have been made since war was declared for those to be delivered?

Geoff Hoon: There are arrangements for the delivery of small packages to members of the armed forces serving in the Gulf. When the conflict is concluded, I anticipate that those arrangements will be more extensive to allow for the delivery of larger packages. However, I am sure that hon. Members will understand why it is not possible in the early stages of a conflict to design arrangements that allow for large packages to be delivered, not least because there is simply insufficient space on board transport aircraft to deliver them when vital military equipment is being delivered into theatre.

Chris McCafferty: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the B-52 bombers that have left RAF Fairford do not, and will not, carry cluster bombs?

Geoff Hoon: Cluster bombs are unlikely to be delivered at this stage of the operation, as I already told the House. The present stage of the campaign is concerned with identifying regime targets and making it clear to the population of Iraq that it is the regime that we are attacking, not the people of that country.

Tom Harris: May I associate myself and my constituents with the expressions of sympathy for the servicemen lost last night? Contrary to the accusation that they died needlessly, those men died in the service of their country. Their families and the House are proud of them.
	May I ask the Secretary of State about environmental damage to Iraq caused by fires in oil wells? Has he any intelligence to show whether, so far, the wells have simply been set alight—in which case the fires should be fairly easy to extinguish—or whether they have been sabotaged with the use of explosives, in which case the environmental damage could take far longer to repair?

Geoff Hoon: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. The strategic significance of the current operations is the effort to avoid just the sort of environmental risk that we feared the regime would pose, involving both the destruction of oil wells in the south and the potential release of large amounts of oil into the Gulf, which would cause an environmental and ecological catastrophe in that part of the world. The first stage has gone well, in that we have managed to avoid such a catastrophe.
	There are clearly problems, but according to the best information I have at present there are only fires in about 30 oil wells—although we are worried about the possibility that they have been mined and more deliberate damage caused.

Equine Welfare (Ragwort Control) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

John Greenway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
	I did not expect quite so many Members to be in the Chamber. I am sure that the fact that so many are now leaving does not show any lack of interest in the issue that we are about to discuss.
	This is the second occasion during my 16 years in the House on which I have had the good fortune to be placed in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I have always been in the "teens", never up in the giddy heights of the first seven. On the first occasion I was able to put on the statute book the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991. Now I am introducing a Bill to control ragwort for the welfare of horses.
	Hon. Members may wonder what the second Bill has in common with the first. Certainly, they cover a wide interest in various subjects, but the first Bill dealt with a grave injustice in the way in which mentally disordered offenders were dealt with—it has proved extremely effective in eradicating much of that injustice—and, in my view, the issue of ragwort control also involves injustice. I am thinking of the injustice perpetrated by ragwort on the owners of horses, many of them children who, through no fault of their own, lose a horse or a loved pony for a reason that could have been avoided. And if we in this place can make law to deal with problems that could be avoided, we do a great service to those whom we are here to represent.
	This is not the first time that ragwort has been debated in the House, but it is, I believe, the first time since 1959 that a Bill has been introduced to control the spread of that insidious weed. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have strongly supported my proposals. On 21 January last year, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross)—who, I am glad to see, is present—led a debate calling for action to control ragwort. There was also a debate on 25 July 2000, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), on much the same lines, and last June an early-day motion was signed by, I think, 61 Members.
	Why has there been so much interest of late, when there had been none for more than 40 years? More to the point, why has nothing happened, given the interest that the House has shown?
	The deadly effects of common ragwort—or, to give its proper title, Senecio jacobaea—have been well recognised by those who care for equines and other livestock. In 1959, when the Weeds Act was introduced, it classed the plant—along with spear thistle, creeping or field thistle, curled dock and broad-leaved dock—as an injurious weed. Ragwort, however, is the most pernicious, and has caused endless heartache and agony to many a horse owner. Only when the Root Out Ragwort campaign—that is a good name, is it not? It rolls off the tongue—was started just over five years ago was greater awareness raised of the havoc caused by the plant. The campaign has been led by the British Horse Society, to which I pay tribute for all its work and support. It has been taken up by several other organisations, including the Country Land and Business Association, the Donkey Sanctuary, the Animal Health Trust and the Home of Rest for Horses.

Peter Bottomley: When they cover this debate, should not the media—especially television and the press—show what ragwort looks like, so that those not familiar with it know what is being discussed?

John Greenway: Had I been three or four lines further on in my speech, that would have been an extremely pertinent point. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will reply to his comment about the prettiness of the plant shortly. The new BBC 1 "Politics Show" covered the issue in its Yorkshire and Lincoln opt-outs on Sunday, and showed some film of the plant. I agree that more people should be able to see what it looks like. Several regional newspapers have also taken an interest. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's constituency contains the headquarters of the West Sussex Gazette. It appears that it does. Will he please thank its staff for their interest?
	Despite that publicity, it appears that ragwort is on the increase. Horse owners and farmers spend many hours attempting to rid their land of it. The Highways Agency spends some £1 million a year on controlling the weed, yet it still proliferates. In the summer, our main trunk roads, railway embankments and countryside are ablaze with the pretty yellow flowers described by my hon. Friend—and every plant means the potential agonising death of equines.
	Even a small piece of ragwort ingested by an equine will, over the years, cause deterioration of the liver. Further ingestion will continue the damage, but outwardly it will not be possible to see what is happening—not, that is, until the liver is 75 per cent. damaged, beyond repair. By the time the clinical symptoms of ragwort poisoning show, it is too late: the animal is doomed to die a painful, distressing death, unless humanely destroyed by a veterinary surgeon.
	Symptoms of liver poisoning are varied but can include depression, loss of appetite, chewing of fences, restlessness and staggering, leading to loss of consciousness and eventual death. Horses have been seen leaning their heads against walls and walking into objects, seemingly oblivious to their surroundings. Cattle become aggressive and exhibit manic behaviour. Pigs can suffer from fever and respiratory distress.
	Although ragwort has a bitter taste, in circumstances such as drought or poor grazing, equines will consume it and can even develop a taste for it. Once cut and dried, it becomes even more palatable to animals but no less deadly. Most recent cases have occurred from ingestion of conserved forage rather than from grazing of the live plant. It is estimated that about 500 equines died from ragwort poisoning in 2001 and figures available to the British Horse Society indicate that the number is likely to have doubled in 2002. Those are conservative estimates, based on known or suspected cases, extrapolated for the whole country by Dr. Derek Knottenbelt, the UK's leading specialist in ragwort poisoning, who is based at Liverpool university.
	In West Sussex, the Liphook equine hospital and the Arundel equine veterinary hospital report that they have dealt with 25 cases each in the past year. West Sussex is only a small area of the country, so there is no reason to suspect that Dr. Knottenbelt's conservative estimate is incorrect. We applaud his work and that of the veterinary clinics. When I told one of my colleagues that I planned to introduce the Bill, he instantly said that Dr. Knottenbelt was the expert to contact. That advice was certainly correct.
	Like many Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has received letters from constituents about the issue, including one from Mrs. McIrvine, a vice-president of the International League for the Protection of Horses and of the National Equine Welfare Council. This good lady has a lifetime's experience of horses and said that she had come across many cases where there was every reason to believe that the horse had suffered disastrously from the ingestion of ragwort.
	I want to refer to one of cases described by the hon. Member for Teignbridge in the debate in 2002. He spoke of a pony named Topic, which belonged to a nine-year-old girl who adored him. Almost overnight, Topic went from being an apparently healthy animal to one suffering from ragwort poisoning. He became unco-ordinated and staggered about. A blood test confirmed the vet's fears and Topic was humanely destroyed before he could suffer further. His little owner was naturally devastated.
	In 2001, the British Horse Society reported on the death of another beloved horse, Scirocco, a bay gelding living in Wales. His owner had been meticulous in removing ragwort from her fields. Sadly, Scirocco had consumed ragwort in conserved forage, which led to his untimely death. Later in the same year, Mrs. Victoria Shaw from Derbyshire watched in horror as first one and then another of her horses died from ragwort poisoning. Her prize-winning colt was only three years old and her gelding was aged four.
	Another pony, Domino, was much loved by Catriona who spent two and a half years looking after him and enjoyed competing on him. When she grew too big for Domino he was sold to Ross who also fell in love with him. However, Domino had eaten ragwort when he was younger and in 2002 he started to lose weight, became listless and no longer wanted to jump. In just two weeks, he became extremely ill. Blood tests revealed considerable liver damage and to save him from further pain he was put down.
	The other day, I received a telephone call from a lady who runs a riding school in West Bromwich. Through an intermediary, she and her friends lease land owned by the local authority. The land is infested with ragwort and they are losing horses. Those are real examples of the effect of that pernicious weed not only on horses but on the lives and sensibilities of many of our constituents.

Shona McIsaac: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are talking only about the common ragwort and not about other varieties of the plant, such as fen ragwort and Oxford ragwort? Do they contain the same poisonous alkaloids?

John Greenway: We are talking only about the common ragwort. I am not aware that the varieties of ragwort to which the hon. Lady refers cause a problem. Perhaps some other species of ragwort are rare and need to be protected, but I am talking about the common ragwort that one sees on grass verges, sprouting beautiful yellow flowers.
	The main problem with common ragwort's effect is that many animals may appear to die from other or similar diseases. Unless there is a post-mortem, there is no way of knowing whether the animal is already suffering the effects of ragwort ingestion. Due to the insidious nature of ragwort, advanced damage to the liver can take many years to occur—sometimes, as many as 10 to 15 years. Given the conservative estimate, in 2002, of 1,000 deaths a year, and if no action is taken to control the growth of ragwort, how many horses will die in 2012 or 2017? That does not bear thinking about. Given the Minister's responsibilities within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he will know that some of the illnesses and diseases that have affected our livestock over the years start in a small way, but can quickly escalate because of the time that it takes for the symptoms to show.
	The horse industry's value to the economy is estimated at £2.5 billion. It is a hugely important industry in my constituency. At the last count, we had some 28 racehorse trainers and several breeders. One need only go to the Ryedale show each July, which has no fewer than seven rings for gymkhanas and horses, to realise just how important the horse is to the rural economy. I know that the Minister, whose responsibilities include the horse, recognises this only too well. Indeed, I am very grateful to him for the manner in which he has discussed this issue with me, and for being here today—on a Friday—to respond to my Bill.
	There are some 900,000 privately owned horses in the UK, and a further 65,000 professionally owned animals. Almost 1 million horses are therefore at risk. With farmer diversification and riding increasing in popularity—some 26.5 million riding lessons took place in 1999, the last year for which figures are available—the use of the horse for all manner of leisure pursuits will increase. If we do not do something now to control the growth of ragwort, the number of horses dying from its poison will increase.
	Why has the Weeds Act 1959 failed to protect these animals? Under it, it is not illegal to allow ragwort to grow. The Act allows the Secretary of State to serve a notice on an occupier of any land on which one of the five specified injurious weeds is growing. They include the common ragwort, but not the other types referred to by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). The notice requires the occupier to take action to prevent the weeds from spreading. The Act also permits DEFRA officials to enter the land to establish whether an enforcement notice has been complied with. Only if the occupier has unreasonably failed to comply with the notice can he or she be found guilty of an offence.
	By its own admission, the Department does not investigate a complaint unless it relates to agricultural land, or to agricultural land that has diversified into horses. The process is reactive, not preventive. In 2002, DEFRA stated that 1,212 initial reports resulted in 490 complaint forms being issued, just 200 of which were returned. No notices were served in 2002 or in the previous year. The failure of the 1959 Act is that it only empowers the Secretary of State to take action; it does not require him to do so. It provides no structure to enable landowners, particularly public authorities, routinely to establish a mechanism through which they can deal with this problem.
	I turn now to control and why the weed is so pernicious. There is no quick and easy way to control ragwort. Several methods are available, but no single one suits all scenarios. One of the main problems has been that ragwort control often takes place when the plant is highly visible, during the flowering season of July and August. It is too late then, because the seeds are already on their way. Each plant can produce between 150,000 and 250,000 seeds that, once airborne, can travel up to 10 miles. The seeds can lie dormant for 20 years in the soil before germinating.
	New motorways being built now—although there are not many, given the Government's transport policy—and other new developments disturb the soil, through the creation of embankments, and will produce a forest of ragwort in the next few years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you drive from the top of the M1 in north Yorkshire to Brent Cross and Staples Corner in April and May, because you will see a 200-mile carpet of dandelions. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes will have used the road and she will know what I mean. The same potential problem exists for the dreadful ragwort. Crawley in Sussex is apparently rife with new ragwort, as developers snap up land and leave it for future development, awaiting the go-ahead for the thousands of new homes proposed by the Government.
	Control methods for ragwort need to be applied in the spring, during April and May, when the plant is at the rosette stage of growth. Current methods of cutting do not destroy the plant. It will grow again the next year, more prolifically than before. Hand pulling must ensure that the whole root is removed, otherwise it will return. Hand pulling or digging is labour-intensive. Spot spraying with herbicides is a popular method of control, but operators need to be trained to know which plant they should be spraying. Biological methods of control, such as using the cinnabar moth, are under investigation. I understand that a report on that issue will be presented to DEFRA soon.
	During my research, I have discovered that there are now fewer cinnabar moths around than there used to be. That may be one of the reasons why it is more difficult to control the spread of ragwort. The moths are a natural predator for the plant and it has been claimed that if we get rid of all the ragwort, we will have no cinnabar moths. However, the spread of ragwort is so great at the moment that I regard that prospect as extremely unlikely.

Bill Wiggin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his important Bill. I have seen for myself the horrendous spread of ragwort along verges next to agricultural land on which horses graze. It is especially insidious because the weed can be harvested with the hay and is equally poisonous when it is dried out. Can he confirm that people who pull up ragwort should wear gloves, because it can be damaging to the human liver to pull it up with bare hands for prolonged periods?

John Greenway: I can confirm that. It is amazing how one's hon. Friends who intervene can anticipate the very next paragraph in one's speech.

Bill Wiggin: Sorry.

John Greenway: There is no need to apologise; the intervention was timely. I was about to say that no matter what method is employed to control ragwort, operators need to be fully trained and protected with suitable clothing, such as gloves, because the poison from ragwort can enter through the skin. Pretty the plant may be; pretty deadly, it most certainly is.
	What is the Bill about, and what are we trying to achieve? We lack a structure within which land occupiers can work to control ragwort. We want not to impose new burdens on public authorities and landowners, but to make life easier by setting up a structured system that occupiers may follow to deal with what I believe is a moral obligation to ensure that the weed is not on their land. A code of practice to control ragwort is being produced and may provide the mechanism that will allow people to comply with the Bill. Public landowners support the process, and I have had letters and representations of support from Hampshire county council, which takes the issue seriously because of the many wild horses and ponies in the New Forest, and from Oxfordshire county council. An Oxfordshire member sits on the code of practice steering group, as does a member from Network Rail.
	I was glad to receive from Oxfordshire this week a letter from the area engineer, Colin Carritt, which outlines the work that the county council is doing to deal with the problem. I shall read several paragraphs from that letter because they show precisely what we think the code of practice—guidance to help the authorities—might contain. The letter states:
	"From the Local Authority point of view, we have been mindful of the limitations of budgets and the huge demands for our services across the entire environmental and road safety spectrum."
	As a former member of North Yorkshire county council, I know only too well the truth of that. It goes on:
	"Over many years we have developed policies which limit the use of chemical treatments to roadside verges, in an attempt to improve bio-diversity and the aesthetic appeal of countryside verges. This has been extremely effective, but it does mean that in dealing with outbreaks of Ragwort (and other problematic weeds) we are invariably tied to manual methods of removing infestation. You will appreciate that for large organisations with significant overheads, such labour intensive operations are extremely expensive. We have, therefore, developed ways of working with volunteer organisations from the equine world, who can supply labour at minimal cost. We, for our part, can provide transport and disposal facilities. The next stage of our campaign in Oxfordshire is to investigate the use of community service work through the Probation Office. I hope that we can use this route to further manage the Ragwort problem on highway verges.
	We have also developed a system for notifying landowners where infestation occurs on private land. This has involved mail shots to every Parish Council in Oxfordshire, and asking for them to nominate a Ragwort Watcher for their Parish. We have supplied Parish maps so that when infestation is identified, the Ragwort Watcher can contact this office with a precise location together with the landowners name and address so that we can then send a standard letter drawing the attention of the landowner to the problem, and seeking their co-operation."
	That may sound amusing, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you, like me, represent a rural area, you will understand that it provides an extremely effective way of making use of people in the community at effectively no cost to the Government or to local authorities.
	The letter goes on:
	"We have made it clear that we are in no position to take enforcement action, but we are happy to use our good offices to persuade and encourage others to fulfil their responsibility.
	For their part, the Oxfordshire branch of the British Horse Society has been active in promoting publicity through local media, and local schools, as well as providing the nucleus of core volunteers for Ragwort clearance in public areas."
	I hope that the House will forgive me for quoting from that letter at such length, but I hope that I have illustrated very precisely the point that the Minister and I discussed in his office on Monday morning. I think that it was his very first meeting of the week—it was certainly mine.

Alun Michael: It was my third.

John Greenway: That is one of the burdens of high office. In our meeting, we discussed our desire to avoid giving the impression that the Bill would impose lots of new burdens on local authorities, which, like it or lump it, they would have to deal with. That is not what we are about, because we know that we would run into difficulties with our colleagues in the Local Government Association and with other Departments that have responsibility in this area.
	Our primary intention is that the Bill should draw attention to the problem, which is one of the great opportunities that success in the private Member's Bill ballot provides. Beyond that, we want to demonstrate that we can, through a simple measure, make it easier for authorities and landowners to deal with the problem, and the code of practice is an important way of doing so. Some landowners are showing that they are willing to control ragwort—I have clearly demonstrated that that is happening in Oxfordshire—but others need to make a greater commitment. We want the Bill to provide that commitment, supported by the code of practice. That approach will produce an effective piece of legislation.
	As it stands, the Bill offers three options. It can impose a duty on relevant occupiers to control ragwort on relevant land; it can impose a duty to report annually on measures taken to control ragwort; or it can issue a code of practice and other guidance as to the control of ragwort. One issue that we have to address in the code of practice is its status in any enforcement proceedings that may follow if a landowner or local authority does not take appropriate action and there is a prosecution under the Weeds Act 1959, albeit that such prosecutions are extremely rare.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is particularly gracious to give way twice. Can he inform the House what procedures will take place in view of the fact that local authorities have often been the perpetrators of the greatest ragwort crimes? How will it be possible to prosecute local authorities?

John Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am not sure that we are in a position to answer him, as that is one of the issues that the Minister and I agreed that we would like to thrash out in Committee. That is one reason why I want to ask the House to allow the Bill to proceed into Committee. We have identified the problem, and I hope that in this lengthy—I am sorry—but wide-ranging speech I have made the case that something must be done. As we know from bitter experience—I have been here for 16 years—we often get knee-jerk reaction legislation imposing impractical measures that ultimately do not work. We want to avoid that.
	Even if we ended up with a Bill that provided a code of practice to be given by the Minister's Department to all public landowners and local authorities, that would give them a structure to help them to deal with the problem. Instead of enforcement, we would be taking preventive measures. The attitude that has been adopted by Oxfordshire, Hampshire and other local authorities indicates that they want to do the right thing, but we need to determine what is the right thing and how they can make changes. That is why the Bill is so important.
	This is not a Government handout Bill; it has been drafted by the British Horse Society and, in an ideal world, is what we would want. We know that, in the real world, we will not get it in full. However, the Bill follows on from a detailed review of the current situation. If the Government would adopt just one of the options—and I describe the three different aspects of the Bill as options—it would go a long way to improving the situation. I know from conversations with the Minister that there is an ongoing discussion between him and the LGA with the aim of arriving at the right solution through a code of practice.
	The code and this Bill have been initiated by the British Horse Society. I would like the House to give all parties the opportunity to pursue this issue and to allow the Bill to go to Committee. If, at that stage, we can agree that at least one of the options could be adopted in a way that would avoid the problems that I have outlined and would bring about the solutions that we all want, we would have the makings of a very effective piece of legislation that could come back the House and, I hope, be approved on Third Reading. The most important thing is to enable those responsible to benefit actively the welfare of the horse.

John Mann: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on introducing this Bill. It may be a new regulatory burden but I wholeheartedly support it. I shall outline my reasons briefly. In my constituency, the problem is serious. It was first raised with me, and has been raised repeatedly since, by one of my constituents—Mr. Foljambe, whose ancestors were once the elected Members for Bassetlaw, going back to the 19th century. Indeed, they were the last Members for Bassetlaw until my good self who lived in the constituency. Mr. Foljambe is still the largest landowner in the constituency. He therefore has a vested interest but he has great experience. He and many others have raised this problem because it appears to be increasing.
	Rather than repeat the detailed explanations that were given by the hon. Member for Ryedale, I want to add one or two comments on why the issue is important. The first concerns the leisure pursuits of many of my constituents. My stables are currently unoccupied but many of my constituents are diversifying into leisure pursuits. Equine recreation is an increasingly popular sport and leisure pursuit, but I want to stress the business opportunities that exist in farm and agricultural diversification. Across the Bassetlaw constituency, there are hundreds of such opportunities. Therefore, anything that stands in the way of diversification into new business opportunities is a danger. A leisure business that is based on pony trekking, for example, will be in danger from the spread of ragwort. If that spread is uncontainable, the danger will recur. The bridleways that people go down, the roads that people cross, and the public and private lands that they have to pass through are not maintained in the way that Mr. Foljambe—who is probably the country's leading warrior in the battle against ragwort—maintains his land. That in itself would be sufficient reason for the Government to look favourably on these proposals.
	My second comment is on the agricultural industry. Something that is less well documented and understood about ragwort is the additional costs and problems for those who produce agriculturally. Not only does ragwort have to be eliminated, but if there is any fear of its mixing with and contaminating the forage that has been provided, there is a significant business loss. Therefore it is not simply a question of animal welfare, albeit an important one; there is also a question of business costs, business loss and future dangers to an important sector of my local economy and the national economy.
	For those reasons, I strongly urge the Government to look favourably at the progress of the Bill, and to look in depth at how far we can go in Committee to determine an approach to the complex and difficult ways of dealing with the spread of ragwort.

John Greenway: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and equally, or perhaps even more, grateful for his support for the Bill. In case I do not have the opportunity to speak to him, if we succeed today in getting a Second Reading, I should be very grateful if he would serve on the Committee.

John Mann: Having spent three months serving on the Committee of the Criminal Justice Bill, I reserve my position on such an onerous burden and leave it to the appropriate authorities to determine such things. With that minor reservation, I commend the Bill to the House.

Richard Younger-Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on introducing the Bill and I hope that it receives the necessary support today to pass into Committee.
	Ragwort is an attractive plant. When we moved into our house some 12 years ago, I was delighted by the yellow-flowered plant that we found growing in our new garden. I did not know what it was; not many people do. It was pointed out to me fairly soon that it was a weed that we should not have, and we spent a long time trying to extract it from the garden. It is, however, extremely persistent and its removal is very difficult. In fact, it took us a number of years to eradicate it, which we did by digging it out over time.
	The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned the cinnabar moth, which is very distinctive. I do not see many of those moths around where I live, perhaps because we got rid of the ragwort. Pernicious poison is absorbed from the plant by the moth, making the moth poisonous to its predators. That shows how poisonous the alkali in the plant are.
	The hon. Gentleman kindly mentioned my Adjournment debate, in which I tried to persuade the then Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), to take greater action to rid the countryside of ragwort, because it was a concern to farmers and to those with equestrian pastimes or equestrian stables in my constituency. I did not set great store by the response that the then Minister gave.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe as the then Minister. It is important to put on the record that my hon. Friend is still a Minister.

Richard Younger-Ross: And he was the Minister who was responding at the time, rather than the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, who is before us today. Incidentally, I do not see why we have a change of Minister.

Alun Michael: It is very easy to explain. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I share an interest in the issue. He has a lot of interest in animal welfare issues, and of course the impact of ragwort extends not just to horses but to other animals. I have specific responsibilities, including responsibility as Minister for the horse, so between us we make up a strong team and I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for those comments.
	At that time, we received the response that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—would take action if ragwort was growing on farmland, but was very unwilling to take any action if it was growing at a purely equestrian establishment. One of the strengths of the Bill is that it will do away with that discrimination and it will require action across the board, whatever the nature of the establishment.
	Since then, I have visited the mare and foal sanctuary just outside Chudleigh in my constituency, which does excellent work in looking after distressed horses and ponies. When I visited, the sanctuary had a pony that was recovering from ragwort poisoning, and I am pleased to say that the staff were able to restore the animal to health by using traditional herbal remedies. What is fascinating, however, is that the poor pony was addicted to the weed, so if it was growing in the field where he grazed, he would dig it up. Before the workers could let the pony out, they had to walk the field to make sure that no ragwort was coming up. The weed would re-emerge, even though a pair of workers walked the field daily.
	Ragwort comes from a number of sources, and it is often found where there is development. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, it is found alongside the highways and byways. It is important that it is removed so that it does not contaminate land, particularly where there are horses and ponies.
	It is important that in Committee we address arguments about biodiversity, which are of concern to Members. There is confusion between common ragwort and other forms of the plant, and the difference needs to be made clear. That, too, can be dealt with in Committee.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that he does not want the Bill to be a burden on local authorities. That is worth emphasising. The highways authority in Devon has recently had £8 million cut from its budget, so the last thing that Devon wants is any extra burdens, and I am sure that council tax payers do not want extra burdens on them, however reasonable the cause. I wish the hon. Gentleman every success with the Bill.

Shona McIsaac: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate as I was one of the Members who stayed in the Chamber to listen to the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) early last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) was also present, so we had a complete complement of the northern Lincolnshire MPs in the House that night. We feel that this is a serious issue. Although we have urban areas in our constituencies, there is a rural hinterland where, as hon. Members have explained, ragwort poses a serious problem for the welfare of horses.
	Ragwort is particularly poisonous to equines, but we should not overlook the fact that common ragwort is poisonous to other species of animal, including bovines. Sheep are also affected by the poisonous alkaloids in the plant. However, agricultural practices mean that many sheep and cattle are slaughtered before they begin to show symptoms of or die from ragwort poisoning. The poison tends to take effect slowly in those animals; the process is much quicker in horses.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on introducing the Bill. He has articulated very well the fact that the increase in this problem lies not only in the spread of the perennial plant but in the fact that ragwort poisons horses because it ends up in their forage, where its existence cannot be detected by the person purchasing it.
	The ragwort plague, as it has often been described, was a serious problem throughout the 1990s, but less so during the '80s. There are many reasons for its increase, including changes made to farming practice over the years. Farming is becoming less labour intensive, which means that ragwort plants are not pulled up in and around paddocks and on verges and roadsides.
	Yes, of course, development has an effect by turning soil, so that seeds in very low soil layers can be brought to a level at which they begin to germinate. The fact that they can remain dormant for 20 years demonstrates the seriousness of the problem.
	Neglect is another contributory factor to the plague of ragwort. An awful lot of former agricultural land has become neglected and the weeds take hold, and no one is dealing with those pastures. That is something else that we have to consider in controlling ragwort.
	The main thing that I wish to talk about is the lack of effective predation—something about which I may disagree with the hon. Member for Ryedale. The cinnabar moth caterpillar is common ragwort's only effective predator. He said that, if the effect of controlling ragwort was the destruction of that moth, it was fine by him.

John Greenway: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I was saying that some people have suggested that there would be no cinnabar moths if we got rid of all the ragwort, but there is sufficient ragwort to ensure that the cinnabar moth will survive.

Shona McIsaac: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that point. Although all hon. Members have constituents who are worried about the welfare of their horses and other animals, we also have constituents who are very keen on butterflies and moths, and we would probably upset them if there were any suggestion of their extinction.
	Ragwort is important to biodiversity in this country. It is vital to the survival of the cinnabar moth. So we begin to discover how the plague started in the late 1980s. In fact, 1988 was a particularly good year for the cinnabar moth. What happened was that the cinnabar moth caterpillar munched far too much ragwort. Although that sounds like a good thing, the following year, there was nothing for the caterpillars to eat, the moths did not lay their eggs and the predator population of cinnabar moth caterpillars plummeted, so we began to see an increase in common ragwort in the late 1980s.
	We have to look seriously at the effect of biological controls on ragwort to try to re-establish the cinnabar moth, the existence of which is precarious in Britain at the moment. It is simply not reaching sustainable levels, so apart from all the other methods that can be considered to control common ragwort—systemic pesticides, digging out the roots and so on—the cinnabar moth is crucial to the argument. Some companies are now looking at such biological controls.
	A few years ago, some of us laughed at the idea of buying nematodes to use as a biological method of controlling slugs in our gardens, but they are now commonly used. That method is more natural and it is also very effective. I hope that we can enlist the support of the cinnabar moth to contribute to reducing equine deaths.
	One cinnabar moth caterpillar can eat a ragwort flower in about three minutes. When the moth lays its eggs and the caterpillars hatch, the brood will demolish the flowers on a plant in a day, thus getting rid of the seeds that could be released into the wind. Those caterpillars will consume about 30 plants before they turn into moths. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, those plants can produce between 150,000 and 200,000 seeds, so we can see the effect that the cinnabar moth could have on beginning to reduce the ragwort population to a level where it is less of a threat to equines, bovines and other species, while still contributing to the biodiversity of the United Kingdom's environment away from where animals are kept. I would not wish to see the plant totally destroyed. It looks wonderful away from pasture and paddocks, where it is no risk to animals.

Richard Younger-Ross: There is a lot of ragwort in the fields, as all of us in the Chamber have said. There are also cinnabar moths, but they do not appear to be growing in vast numbers. Therefore, there must be another cause for the decline of the cinnabar moth. We must be able to address that problem before we can use and rely on that control method for ragwort.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A lot of work has been done on this subject. To extend it, we must look at predation on the moths. Some people are doing research on the dramatic decline in numbers of cinnabar moths after the population explosion. The level of predation on the moth does not allow it to get to a level at which it can establish itself and thus become an effective predator on ragwort. Their numbers are low, and if the moths' natural predators—bird species and so on—keep taking the caterpillars, it will not manage to meet the thresholds at which it can become a viable population.
	To return to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ryedale, it is an excellent measure, and I know that many of my constituents will be pleased to see it come into force. The Clee saddlery in my constituency, for example, does a lot of work via its website to educate horse owners and other owners of animals in my constituency about what the flowers actually look like: as has been said, some people see it as just a pretty yellow flower without realising its dangers. The saddlery sells what is called a "Rag Fork" to dig out the roots of the plant, and it also posts messages on its website from people in the area about what has happened to their animals.
	Other Members have read out sections of letters and so on, and I shall just read out a few of the words from a message on Clee saddlery's website. It said:
	"On New Years Eve I was told that my old pony we sold in the summer had ragwort poisoning and would probably have to be destroyed in a week!! I was and still am so devastated, she is beautiful and loving. My fields are ragwort clear, I insist on digging it out on first appearance and putting it in a bonfire away from the field. But even I did not realise how deadly this weed is . . . The vet has said that ragwort poisoning can build up over a number of years, and that ragwort is now commonly being found in hay! Even though my fields are clear if a horse swallows seeds that have blown in from next door that's enough to start it off".
	Those words summarise the nature of the problem. The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned some other cases, and the hon. Member for Teignbridge mentioned in his Adjournment debate the sad case of a pony called Topic who died from ragwort poisoning.
	I support the Bill. I hope that it proceeds through its Committee stage speedily, so that we can offer more protection to owners of horses in the UK in the future.

Jonathan Djanogly: I, too, am pleased to support the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on his expert uncovering of the problems associated with this pernicious weed, which is a poison to our equine friends. However, many regard ragwort as the very essence of an English summer—a letter in one newspaper described it as
	"meadows of wildflower covering the fading fields of Britain with a rich and cheerful gold,."—
	and many herbalists believe that Senecio jacobaea, also known as St. James' wort, has medicinal value: apparently, it can help to alleviate aches and pains and even stay catarrh. It has been said that the scientific evidence to back that claim is rather weak, and it is only used for external conditions.

Shona McIsaac: I might be pre-empting a comment that the hon. Gentleman was about to make. Ragwort has a long history of use in herbalism—in fact, it used to be used as a medicine for horses that had the staggers. Was he aware of that?

Jonathan Djanogly: That is very interesting. I did know that in days gone by ragwort was used to cleanse what are described as old filthy ulcers in the privities.
	A positive view of ragwort is, however, shadowed by the worrying threat that it poses to horses. I confess that the threat was originally brought home to me by my young son coming home with his pony club dangerous plants badge and telling me all about it.
	The clusters of yellow summer-flowering weeds that grow up to 3 ft high are, of course, highly poisonous. All the figures available suggest that equine liver disease caused by ragwort poisoning killed at least 500 horses last year, and will probably kill 1,000 this year. Ragwort poisoning is almost undetectable until it is too late, with horses not showing symptoms until almost 75 per cent. of their liver has been rotted away, at which point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale explained, they start to display a variety of behavioural abnormalities—becoming confused and disoriented, wandering aimlessly, and even banging their heads against brick walls.
	My hon. Friend referred to Dr. Derek Knottenbelt of Liverpool university, the acclaimed expert in the subject. He has reported that because of the nature of death by liver failure—in some cases, without any warning, horses have been found dead—it is possible that many more cases of death by ragwort poisoning have been wrongly attributed to heart attack, stroke or colic. However, there are no routine autopsies in the equine world.
	Whatever the numbers involved in ragwort poisoning, it is clear that the plague of ragwort and its rapid increase since the strange disappearance of the cinnabar moth 10 years ago mean death for horses. The reasons for the disappearance of the cinnabar moth have been discussed today; my findings tend to support the opinion of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). In effect, the moth is a victim of its own success, having munched its way through the vast reserves of the weed at some time in the past.

Shona McIsaac: It appears that in the late 80s, there was a vast increase in the population of cinnabar moth caterpillars. Usually, the caterpillars eat only the flowers, which results in fewer seeds being released to the wind, but at that time, they started to eat the first year rosettes as well and thus destroyed their own food source, because ragwort, being a biennial plant, did not come back immediately.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Lady reinforces the point well.
	The plague of ragwort is now growing dramatically and at an alarming rate. Ragwort UK informs me that in areas it has been monitoring, ragwort has increased by 50 per cent. year on year for the past three years in places where no action has been taken to stop growth. Dr. Knottenbelt says:
	"the yellow peril is lurking, and expanding its grip on the UK".
	That is after many hundreds of horse fatalities, two Adjournment debates and many years of relative Government inaction on this rural plague.
	However, as hon. Members have said, a law that allows the Government to deal with the problem already exists. It has done so since the Weeds Act 1959 came into force. In answer to an Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—he is now the Under-Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—said:
	"The 1959 Act applies to Great Britain and empowers Agriculture Ministers to take action against occupiers of any land to prevent the spread of five species of weed. Those are spear thistle, creeping thistle, curled dock, broad-leaved dock and common ragwort. Common ragwort tends to give rise to the great majority of complaints that MAFF receives."
	He then emphasised:
	"Section 1 of the Weeds Act empowers, but does not require . . . action".—[Official Report, 25 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1090.]
	I am sure that the House and equestrians everywhere in Britain would like an answer to the simple question: why have the Government avoided dealing with this problem up to now?
	Britain requires a national solution to ragwort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale noted, a single ragwort plant can produce 150,000 to 200,000 seeds, and they can travel for miles in the wind. My understanding is that the seeds land with a 70 to 80 per cent. viability rate, meaning a large majority of them will germinate.
	Landowners usually get rid of ragwort by pulling it up and burning it, and that can be effective in the short term. However, that is less effective in the long term if neighbouring areas do not take similar action. The widespread deposit of seeds from ragwort plants in neighbouring areas as a result of natural factors such as wind means that the ragwort will return within months. The country needs guidance and action from the Government.
	We do not want landowners to be prosecuted for failing to notice a tiny patch of ragwort on their land. It is not illegal for them to have ragwort grow. However, with it growing so uncontrollably in areas all over the country—near railways, grazing fields and agriculture—it is clear that something needs to be done. The Government must stop ignoring their responsibility to the millions of people in this country who enjoy equestrian activity. I confess that I am one of them. The Government should offer joined-up governance to local authorities and local people on how to get rid of the weed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale mentioned Oxfordshire county council, and my research uncovered an earlier letter from the council that appeared in The Guardian on 29 August 2002. It explained how the council managed to get its 300 parishes together to report infestation and to advise landowners of appropriate action. That approach was apparently quite successful, but would it not have been easier if there had been help from DEFRA, which the letter referred to as "deafeningly silent" on the issue?
	Given that MAFF and now DEFRA have both failed to take a proactive approach to solving the problem, I welcome the Bill. It reinforces the duty of landowners to control ragwort. The proposed new sections 1A and 1B that it would add to the Weeds Act 1959 would do that, although I hope that the reporting procedures in the proposed new section 1B are carefully considered in Committee. I also draw attention to the proposed new section 1C and to clause 2. I understand from Ragwort UK that DEFRA is looking to implement a national strategy by working with local authorities and landowners to combat the spread of the weed. That should have happened earlier because, in the past few years, ragwort has not been brought under control. Instead, it has gone further out of control.
	The code of practice in the proposed new section 1C could provide the opportunity for DEFRA finally to offer guidance. I hope that a code would be subject to full prior consultation and that it would aim to involve the community as a whole. Clause 2 is also welcome, as long as DEFRA takes the opportunity to act on it. It would be no good adding highway authorities and statutory undertakers to the list of those who have a duty to control if DEFRA does nothing to ensure that the duties are observed. In any event, I hope that the Minister will not have to return to the House to tell us again that the Department has failed to act because it was only empowered and not required to do so.
	Finally, I make a plea for the Government's general support for riding in this country, and their support of the Bill would form part of that. The sport not only gives pleasure to thousands of people and forms an important part of rural life, but provides rural employment. Riding stables have been hit hard over recent years by ragwort, regulations, foot and mouth disease and their vulnerability to crime. Indeed, stables in Hilton in my constituency have had tack and farm equipment stolen half a dozen times in the past three years. Proceeding with the Bill would go a small way towards showing the riding community and the countryside that we care about their interests and future.

Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on promoting the Bill, which many of my constituents think is important. Our agriculture spokesman cannot be here today, but I took time to discuss it with him. He was generally supportive of it, although he was worried about aspects relating to biodiversity.
	The bottom line is that the weed ragwort has a serious impact on animal health, and especially equine health. It should be eradicated. The hon. Member for Ryedale talked at length, although I do not mean that as a criticism. He outlined the problems caused by ragwort and the means of its eradication so comprehensively that I feel no need to repeat what he said. May we take my comments on that as read because I could not disagree with much of what he said?
	On biodiversity, I do not want the issue to become a butterflies versus horses argument because that is the last thing that any of us want. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) is looking somewhat downcast about that. We need to ensure that biodiversity is fully considered in Committee. I thought about how we could sustain biodiversity and wondered whether we could set up conservation areas, but that would be difficult because of the way in which ragwort propagates. It would be difficult to restrict ragwort to a conservation area. I was rather taken by the tale told by the hon. Member for Ryedale about a horse called Scirocco. Its owner was absolutely scrupulous about keeping the horse's field clean and free of ragwort but the horse found something in conserved forage. A solution will not be easy, but we need to devote attention to it.
	As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes said, the Bill should specify the biological name of the species of ragwort that is to be restricted because we do not want the Bill to lack clarity in respect of other species.
	Regulation is the most worrying aspect of the Bill. Conservative Members say all the time that the Government introduce too much regulation and that they would introduce less, so I was disappointed to read that new section 1B—"Duty to report annually on measures taken to control ragwort"—states:
	"A relevant occupier shall within two months of the end of every calendar year submit to the Minister a report"—
	and so on; hon. Members may read the rest for themselves. I suspect that the Minister does not really want to be inundated with reports on ragwort control and I do not think that the provision is the most intelligent way of addressing the problem.
	I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale on how we might regulate. He was fairly open about that. Clearly the Bill needs to have teeth, but we do not need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
	County councils could, more locally and relevantly, control and monitor the situation. My home county, Hampshire, takes the problem very seriously. The New Forest, although not in my constituency, is just down the road, and Hampshire therefore will have a real interest in the Bill. The same might apply to other county councils, such as Lincolnshire.
	I have identified some issues that ought to be debated in Committee. I think that the Bill deserves to make progress. It enjoys a lot of support in my area, and probably in others.

James Gray: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on being so high up in the ballot—although I do not know why we congratulate our colleagues in such circumstances, as it is a matter of pure chance. I am glad that he had the good sense to introduce such an excellent Bill.
	I must declare a non-pecuniary interest. Until recently I chaired the parliamentary Horse and Pony Taxation Committee. As such I was a consultant to the British Horse Industry Confederation, and I remain president of the Association of British Riding Schools, which takes a keen interest in the Bill.
	The Bill is supported by most knowledgeable organisations in this sphere, including the British Horseracing Board, the National Farmers Union, the British Horse Society—which I believe was largely responsible for helping to draft the Bill—the Country Land and Business Association and a variety of other equine organisations.
	As others have said, there is a long history of support in the House for action of some sort to deal with ragwort. In November 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) presented an early-day motion calling for action, and, as we have heard, there have been Adjournment debates. I do not think we have paid enough tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who presented two ten-minute Bills on the subject, which may have been enough to stimulate the interest of the Government and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale.
	We have heard much about the ragwort problem, and I think its existence is fairly widely accepted. I was, however, slightly disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who seemed rather less enthusiastic than most of us about its eradication. Incidentally, I must take issue with her on one minute detail. She said that county councils should have authority to implement eradication plans or at any rate to deal with ragwort in one way or another. The point of my hon. Friend's Bill is that it requires authorities such as county councils to take the action that they do not apparently take. When the Bill becomes law, as I hope that it will, county councils' highways authorities will be required to deal with their roads just as the main Highways Agency deals with motorways and the like.

Sandra Gidley: The point I was trying to make—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—is that it is unnecessary to overburden a Department with a matter that could easily be dealt with at local level. There are various options, some of which have been mentioned today. As for my "lack of enthusiasm", the hon. Gentleman misrepresented me slightly. The fact that I did not speak at length does not mean that I do not consider the subject important.

James Gray: I am delighted by those reassurances, although I remain confused about one point. If the Bill's purpose is to require local authorities to act, how can they be required to check whether they have done so? That would be a very peculiar form of self-regulation. While the Minister probably would not read each ragwort control report personally, I am sure he has a host of willing and able civil servants who would be happy to do it for him. Some degree of central control might be a good idea. I am pleased, however, that my hon. Friend has said that not all three parts of the Bill need be enacted—that they are options, and he would be content with the enactment of just one part.
	We have heard a great deal about the huge problem of ragwort; it causes incurable liver damage, primarily among horses, although as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) pointed out, sheep and cows can sometimes be affected. Each plant produces 100,000 seeds—an astonishing figure. As the hon. Lady also pointed out, the seeds can remain alive for up to 20 years, which adds to the problem. The plants are extremely difficult to deal with, as I know from trying to eradicate them by hand from a field behind my house. It is extremely hard to pull up the roots and the plants spread like wildfire.

Shona McIsaac: If the hon. Gentleman has difficulty rooting out ragwort, he should contact Clee Saddlery and buy its excellent rag fork.

James Gray: I was going to refer to rag forks; I think they are great. The hon. Lady is right—I must get one.
	As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and others, correctly said, the problem affects not only animals on the land where the ragwort is growing but can be spread inadvertently through hay when the land is cropped. It is an extremely worrying matter and we must do something about it.
	I pay tribute to the British Horse Society's Root Out Ragwort campaign, which got people interested in the problem four years ago. I hope that interest will be furthered by the debate and that the Government will at last take notice of the problem.
	I want to set out how the Bill would tackle this major problem for the countryside. Ragwort is a notifiable weed under the Weeds Act 1959 and owners are required to deal with it. To be fair, most farmers and landowners try to do so, although some do not. In those cases, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could make more use of the available powers, but in practice it would be difficult to do so, due to the problems of finding out where the ragwort was growing. Education might be a better way to proceed, rather than heavy-handed enforcement of the law.
	The Government could, however, take action with regard to Departments, as there are some bad examples of them completely ignoring ragwort on their land. An area that I know well is Salisbury plain, just outside my constituency, where land owned by the Ministry of Defence is covered in ragwort and no effort is made to eradicate it. Perhaps the Minister could raise that matter with some of his ministerial colleagues and ensure that they live up to their responsibilities.
	The Bill would extend the duties already in force for private landowners and the Government to statutory undertakers—a nice expression—such as those who maintain railways, roads, canals and airports. Thus the Bill is not about private landowners but about statutory undertakers. The NFU highlighted that point in a letter to me praising the Bill, which states:
	"Last October, DEFRA Minister Alun Michael answered a parliamentary question which acknowledged that the spread of ragwort alongside roads and on railway lines was of particular concern to many people in the countryside, and he indicated that he had written to the Highways Agency, the Local Government Association and Railtrack reminding them of the serious problems caused by ragwort and urging them to ensure that they took effective clearance action."
	I welcome the fact that the Minister took that action. Can he tell us about the reaction of those organisations? Are they taking the matter as seriously as we are? Unfortunately, they do not seem to be taking the problems nearly seriously enough—with one notable exception. The Bill's purpose is to introduce a statutory obligation on them to do so in future.
	The notable exception is the Highways Agency, to which I pay tribute. The agency is doing extremely good work. It spends about £1 million a year to combat the spread of ragwort along the 5,841 miles of trunk roads and motorway that it operates across England. It is doing good stuff, and the other statutory authorities, including the county councils and Railtrack, could learn some lessons from it.
	As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) pointed out—my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) discussed this issue at some length—it is disappointing that DEFRA is not doing more. Hardly any enforcement actions are taken through the 1959 Act, and it could do more in that regard. Such lack of action may be explained by an interesting quote that I spotted on The Donkey Sanctuary's ragwort campaign website—a website that I do not often look in on. The campaign had got in touch with DEFRA to suggest that more should be done about ragwort, and DEFRA replied that
	"the best course of action is for the complainant to seek a solution with the occupier of the infested land through constructive dialogue and persuasion."
	To a degree, I agree with the sanctuary's complaints and with DEFRA's reply. None the less, the Department's arguing that it does not want to use the statutory powers at its disposal, and that it would much rather that such things be sorted out
	"through constructive dialogue and persuasion",
	is a little disappointing. Instead, perhaps the Government might choose some high-profile occasion on which to take action against a particularly bad example of ragwort rogues, as it were. In doing so, they might encourage others to be more sensible about the issue.
	I therefore welcome the introduction of this Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, because it closes what is, in effect, a gap in current legislation. At the moment, private landowners are required to clear up ragwort as a notifiable weed, but public authorities are not. The Bill therefore seems a very sensible closure of that gap. It addresses what is a very real problem in our countryside, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, it sends a useful message to an equine industry that faces some difficult times for various reasons—not least because of the Minister's decision to ban hunting, which will have a great effect on that industry throughout England. In view of that background, it might therefore be a useful time to send a message to that industry that the Government and everyone in this House are determined to do something to help the 1 million horses, and the 2 million to 3 million people who ride in England every year. By abolishing ragwort—by taking action to ensure that local authorities, railways, canal authorities and others do so—the Government will send out exactly that message.

Alun Michael: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for the way in which he introduced this Bill, and the constructive manner in which he has dealt with a matter of great concern to the countryside. During 1997 and afterwards, when we both had different responsibilities, he and I had many exchanges relating to criminal justice. Those exchanges were almost invariably constructive—something that cannot always be said of exchanges in this House. The hon. Gentleman's approach and our discussions with each other and with the British Horse Society have been extremely constructive; indeed, they have pointed to a way forward, to which I shall return in a few minutes.
	I acknowledge that ragwort poses a real threat to equine welfare—a point made by several Members—and its devastating, often fatal effect on horses, ponies and donkeys has been well publicised. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ryedale spelt that out in a contribution that ranged from the clinical to the almost poetic. Some might suggest that this is not an appropriate matter to debate in this House; indeed, one or two Members have contrasted the main topics for today's debate with other issues such as today's statement. However, the fact is that the death of a pony can have a devastating effect on a family, and on children who lose an animal that is more than just a pet. It is clear that we need to do more about this issue.
	I also share with the hon. Gentleman a wish to achieve simple, practical and effective action. We want to avoid increasing the costs and bureaucracy for those who can take measures to eradicate ragwort. Several hon. Members made constructive contributions along those lines, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who effectively represented the ragwort warriors of his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) brought an informed approach to the debate. I understand that the issue formed part of her academic studies, which is why she has such an excellent knowledge of the topic. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) mentioned other forms of ragwort, and the main point to make is that they also have poisonous effects but are nothing like as common as the common ragwort, which is the plant referred to specifically in the Weeds Act 1959. I am not sure about the relative toxicity of the other forms of ragwort, but I shall look into it and ensure that when we discuss it in Committee I am able to deal with those queries.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on his contribution, which was clearly derived from personal local experience. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) covered ground on which we generally agree, although I suggest gently that he showed more enthusiasm for regulation than is often the case in our exchanges. He mentioned the messages that we send out to people who are concerned about horses and to the horse industry generally. I am pleased by the response that I have received from people in the horse industry on various issues.
	The Government have sought to do more than in the past to assist the horse industry, not least by designating an official for the horse who has specific responsibility for working with the industry. That was not the case before. I am the third person to be the Minister with responsibility for the horse, but the flaw was the lack of specific and targeted back-up in the Department. That has now been corrected and Graham Cory, who leads on the issue, has had many meetings with the horse industry. That has been widely welcomed. We are also looking at working with those who are involved in the wide variety of organisations that comprise the horse industry to map out the benefits that can be achieved and to identify the future for the industry.
	Ragwort poses a real threat to equine welfare. The focus of this debate has been on horses, but—as some hon. Members have pointed out—ragwort poisoning can also prove fatal for cattle, sheep and other animals, through cumulative liver damage. However, because of the differences in the digestive systems, the effect is most usually observed in horses and ponies, in which it arises more rapidly. The effect of ragwort on the liver is less noticeable in cattle and sheep because most agricultural livestock is slaughtered before the cumulative effect proves fatal. I also acknowledge that the emotional attachment to horses and ponies makes it all the more distressing for owners to see their animals suffering from ragwort poisoning and what can often be a slow and painful death.
	Ragwort poses two specific risks to horses. First, there is a risk that horses and ponies will eat ragwort growing in field and paddocks. Secondly, as has already been pointed out, there is a risk that ragwort will contaminate dried forage. The latter is possibly the greater risk, as in its dried state ragwort is more palatable to animals. I do not have authoritative statistics about the number of horses and ponies which die each year from ragwort poisoning, although hon. Members have pointed to the estimate made by the British Horse Society of some 500 deaths. The BHS expects that number to increase. We all have a part to play in preventing those deaths.
	I want to concentrate mainly on what the Government and public bodies can do, but I am sure that it will be accepted that horse and pony owners have responsibilities too. They must protect their animals from ragwort poisoning when they are able to take preventive action. That includes ensuring that bought-in feed is purchased from a reputable dealer and warranted to be ragwort-free. I have discussed the issue with the British Horse Society, and I am grateful for its work in bringing that message home to horse owners. I am delighted to learn that Pony Club messages have reached the homes of hon. Members.
	It is essential that we ensure that horse and pony owners can recognise ragwort and other poisonous plants. The suggestion of using visual aids to widen coverage of the debate is a helpful one, although I am not sure, in the current climate, how extensive national coverage might be. It is important for people to know what action they should take to control poisonous weeds in fields or paddocks where animals are grazing. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is helping; we have published identification leaflets and booklets describing weed control methodology, and those are available on our website. I shall send copies of that information to all the hon. Members who have taken part in today's debate. Anything Members can do to advertise the availability of that information would be most welcome.

Shona McIsaac: Are biological methods of control mentioned in the literature, and has the Department conducted any research into those methods?

Alun Michael: I am not specifically aware that that is covered, but I believe that all options are covered in the information. I shall make it available to all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate. That issue is the kind of thing that may be relevant to the code of practice, and it may well be touched on in Committee.
	I am keen to ensure that the Government play a full part in controlling the spread of ragwort. Our powers derive from the Weeds Act 1959. Although that legislation is rather old, it is still an effective tool. Members have quoted from previous debates the authority that it gives to the Secretary of State to control the spread of ragwort as one of five weeds specified in the 1959 Act. The others are the creeping or field thistle, the spear thistle, the curled dock and the broad-leaved dock. It is important to note that the Act does not make it an offence to permit injurious weeds to grow on land. It is primarily concerned with preventing the spread of weeds.
	Section 1 of the 1959 Act gives a permissive power to the Secretary of State to serve a notice on an occupier of land on which one of the five injurious weeds is growing, requiring the occupier to take action to prevent the weeds from spreading. Section 2 provides that where a notice has been served and the occupier has unreasonably failed to comply with it, he or she shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to a fine on conviction. Section 3 provides that where an occupier fails to take clearance action, the Secretary of State may take action to arrange for weeds to be removed and may recover the cost of doing so through the courts. Additional powers permit officials to enter land to inspect whether an enforcement notice has been complied with.

Jonathan Djanogly: We have heard a fair amount about what the Secretary of State can do under the 1959 Act. It would be helpful if we could leave the House today with a commitment that the Government will do more to enforce the provisions.

Alun Michael: Let us work towards that point. The Government have used their powers under the 1959 Act mainly to prevent the spread of ragwort and the other specified injurious weeds to farm land. In 2000, recognising the horse industry's potential contribution to farm diversification activities, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food extended enforcement activity under the Act to on-farm diversified equine businesses.
	DEFRA has maintained that approach, and enforcement work under the 1959 Act is still concentrated on investigating complaints where there is a risk to agriculture and farming. The situation has changed, however. DEFRA has much wider responsibilities than those held by the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Although it is important, agriculture is no longer our sole interest. We are concerned with the whole rural economy. Last year, in my capacity as Minister responsible for horses, I announced that we would discuss with industry representatives the best way to ensure that the horse industry plays a full part in our efforts. In other words, we must work together to strengthen the rural economy.
	There are approximately 1 million horses in the United Kingdom, supported by 3,000 hectares of grazing and a further 3,000 hectares of feed production. Equine interests represent one of the largest economic activities in the countryside, and horse enterprises are major employers in rural areas. I do not underestimate the latent damage that ragwort poisoning could inflict on that increasingly important sector of the rural economy if weed control is not taken seriously. That is why we will review the way that we focus our available resources on those actions that can make the best contribution to protecting horses, as well as farm animals, while recognising the need to protect the rural economy. I hope that that will allow us to respond more effectively to the concerns of horse owners. In considering our approach to enforcement under the 1959 Act, we will need to pay due regard to animal welfare and human health considerations.
	I want to make a point about timing. In his introduction, the hon. Member for Ryedale said that easy identification takes place in the latter part of the season when, to a considerable extent, the damage is already on the way to being done. It is already too late to influence the long-term weed control strategies for 2003. Many of the statutory undertakings whom we are targeting will determine their weed control policy over the winter months. Preventing the spread of weeds relies on early treatment before plants are allowed to seed. It was with that in mind that I wrote to the key organisations last autumn urging them to adopt a co-ordinated approach to weed control—in other words, not only to respond to complaints, but to consider the issues strategically. Over the next few weeks, I will remind statutory undertakings about the need to take weed control seriously and urge them to incorporate weed control activities in their routine maintenance programmes. Launching the voluntary code in the summer, as we intend, will link with the British Horse Society's "Let's rout ragwort" campaign—all the slogans in this campaign should be read out early in the day rather than after an entertaining evening—and will help to ensure that the code receives maximum publicity. A summer launch will also ensure that the code is in place in time to influence weed control strategy planning next winter. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should give the House's support to efforts to put measures in place is extremely welcome.
	I have a great deal of respect for the way in which the hon. Member for Ryedale promoted his Bill, and I share his wish to tackle the problem. He explained that the main target is statutory organisations, including local authorities, the Highways Agency and Network Rail. As matters stand, local authorities are responsible for the control of ragwort on minor roads, the Highways Agency is responsible for motorways and trunk roads—I was pleased to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire about the work that it undertakes—and Network Rail is responsible for the clearance of ragwort on railway land.
	Last summer, there was a proliferation of ragwort on roadside verges and on railway embankments. It is only fair to point out that circumstances over the past two years have been quite unusual. It is possible that the outbreak of ragwort is a result of the reduced clearance work undertaken in summer 2001, which was an inevitable by-product and consequence of foot and mouth disease. Some, however, suspect that it might be indicative of a change in approach by the responsible authorities. That is why I sent them letters to remind them of the importance of this issue. Last year, I wrote to the Highways Agency, the Local Government Association and the then Railtrack to stress the importance of keeping ragwort infestations under control, and they all responded by indicating that they recognised the danger that ragwort can pose to horses and other livestock.
	The Bill places a wide-ranging obligation on statutory bodies to control ragwort on all the land that they occupy. The hon. Member for Ryedale has already described in detail the content of the Bill. I am with him on what he wants to achieve but I have concerns about the practical consequences of implementing the Bill in its current form. I had the opportunity to explain those concerns to the hon. Gentleman when we met a week ago, but it is only fair that I should explain them to the House.
	As drafted, the Bill would place significant new burdens on local authorities and other statutory undertakings. That would have significant cost implications. The Bill is also rather a blunt instrument and in its current form does not focus on the real problem—which is how to prevent the spread of ragwort to land that is used to graze horses and other livestock, or to grassland that is used for forage. It would affect a wide range of statutory undertakings, including the Post Office, the Civil Aviation Authority, airport operators, the Environment Agency, and gas and electricity providers, as well as more directly relevant bodies such as local authorities, the Highways Agency and Network Rail Environment. Local authorities, as one or two hon. Members have acknowledged, have many competing bids for funding—for example, there is the need to provide social care and more money for education. Similarly, the Highways Agency and Network Rail are under pressure to find more money to maintain our roads and railways. In that climate, the Government cannot add to the financial burden falling on those bodies by giving them additional responsibilities. We need to help them to focus action where it does most to help to eradicate the problem.
	I am not convinced that the additional administrative burden that the annual reporting procedures in the Bill would place on statutory undertakings would result in more being done to eradicate ragwort. It could just mean more bureaucracy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that targeted action is preferable to more paperwork. For those reasons, it will be difficult for the Government to support the Bill in its present form. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ryedale and to the representatives of the British Horse Society for our discussions, which gave an indication of the wish to find a way forward.
	The positive aspect of the Bill as drafted is the code of practice, which forms a central plank of the Bill. I believe that that could be helpful in helping statutory bodies understand their responsibilities in relation to weed control. A code of practice would ensure that landowners who are required to clear their land of ragwort understand exactly what is required of them. A code of practice would also help local authorities and other statutory organisations assess the risk and plan the most effective use of resources to prevent the spread of ragwort. Finally, a code of practice could help with the enforcement of the Weeds Act 1959 by providing a blueprint against which compliance could be measured. That would be beneficial to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the enforcement agency, and to the parties involved in any enforcement action that we take. It would simplify the evidential tests and reduce the work for all concerned. In other words, there could be a saving in bureaucracy if this is thought through in the way I believe the hon. Gentleman and I both wish. The Government are therefore willing to support a Bill that gives a code of practice on weed control statutory effect. That would give the authority of this House, and the support of Members, to what would otherwise be a voluntary code. In one sense, the difference is small; but in the sense of reflecting the views that have been expressed in this debate, the code could be an effective way forward.
	I appreciate that what I have said will require extensive amendments to the Bill. However, I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am proposing these changes in a constructive and co-operative spirit. To secure the outcome that I have described, it will be necessary to delete sections 1A and 1B of the Bill, which is likely to render sections 2 and 3 redundant as well. Some amendment to section 1C will also be necessary to ensure that a code of practice can be used in evidence for enforcement purposes. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would see that as a positive contribution.
	As I have said, I have already spoken to the British Horse Society, as well as to the hon. Gentleman, to indicate the intention of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to achieve a satisfactory outcome. The Department is providing money to meet the cost of producing the voluntary code on which work is already being undertaken. An outline of the code and a timetable for its preparation is in hand. That complements very well what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. To ensure maximum uptake, we would like to involve key statutory organisations in the code's preparation.
	I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ryedale confirm that he has received letters of support for the code of practice concept from local authorities that have taken practical proactive steps themselves. I hope that we shall be able to involve the appropriate technical experts and representatives of Network Rail, local authorities and the Local Government Association, in preparing the code to ensure that it has a broad base of support amongst those statutory organisations with important responsibilities for the control of ragwort.
	If the hon. Member for Ryedale is willing to support in Committee the amendments that I have outlined, I can confirm that the Government would support the Bill. I hope that he would be willing to make that commitment.

John Greenway: I shall speak again.

Alun Michael: In that event, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to respond in the way that I have suggested. I would then look forward to working with him on the Bill in Committee because I believe that the code of practice has an important role to play in clarifying responsibilities and best practice in relation to weed control.
	We are already reviewing the way that DEFRA pursues its responsibilities under the Weeds Act 1959, but that is not to release additional resources. Anyone who is aware of the needs of the countryside and the pressure on the Department will be aware how stretched we are, but I do believe that there are things that could be changed to make a difference to horse owners and target more effectively the available resources and the action that is undertaken. I hope that the Government's offer of co-operation on the Bill, our willingness to work with the industry to prepare a code of practice and the review of enforcement policy that I have announced today will be a signal to the horse industry, as suggested by hon. Members, that we are listening, that we have taken note of their concerns and that we are prepared to do something about them.
	I hope that we shall be able to move forward supporting the Bill—that will help to cement closer working relationships with the horse industry, which is such a strength in the rural economy—and that by protecting the welfare of the horse we shall be able to protect the welfare of the industry and the wider economy. Provided that the hon. Gentleman is willing to commit himself to the approach I have suggested, I will be in a position to recommend to the House that the Bill pass into Committee for further discussion and amendment.

John Greenway: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister but also to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and all hon. Members on both sides of the House for their attendance today and for their approach to the Bill. I do not want to detain the House further, as other hon. Members now wish to pursue their own Bills, but I am happy to respond very positively to what the Minister has said. We agreed earlier this week that the amendments of the kind that he has described would appear to be appropriate, and I am happy to give him that undertaking. On that basis I hope that the question can be put and that we shall have a positive response.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Endangered Species (Illegal Trade) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I should very much like to acknowledge the contribution already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who introduced the original Bill with this title, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who encouraged me personally to take up this cause, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to the same effect. The Bill has cross-party support.
	I do not intend to speak for long, because the Bill is simple. It has just one clause, which increases the maximum sentence for those caught trading in endangered species from two years to five years. That, in itself, is clearly a good thing. However, critically, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, these crimes then become an arrestable offence, which they are not at present. Clearly, that would give the police a great deal more power to tackle these offences.
	Why is the issue important? First, the illegal wildlife trade is now the second most important criminal activity worldwide after drugs, even more so than gun running. It is now worth over £5 billion a year. Given the current international situation, and the way in which terrorists and criminals trade their money, this trade needs to be closed down as a matter of urgency. In fact, it is a mystery to me why that has not been done already.
	Secondly, the Bill would offer much-needed protection to some of the world's most precious and endangered species. I shall give the House a practical example: a recent police raid in the United Kingdom seized tiger cubs that had been killed when they were less than a fortnight old, before their eyes had even opened, and stuffed and mounted on a branch. The police have also found gorilla skulls, leopards, sparrowhawks, snowy owls, turtles, tortoises, parrots and a host of primates. The Worldwide Fund for Nature recently estimated that at least 20 per cent. of the world's species could become extinct in the next 30 years, and the illegal trade in animal products and the animals themselves is a major contributor to that.
	It is worth briefly examining those propositions in more detail. I shall deal first with the use of endangered species as an international criminal activity. As I said, the illegal wildlife trade is worth £5 billion a year. More than 520 million animals and plants are traded internationally each year, and 25 per cent. of the wildlife trade tied up in that is illegal.
	I regret to say that the United Kingdom is a major centre for the trade, acting as both a transit route and a final destination. There are clear and proven links to organised crime, with endangered species being traded along exactly the same smuggling lines as drugs and guns. A recent case in Moscow resulted in the seizure of 10 tonnes of caviar bound for Europe—harmless one might say, even tasty. However, with the caviar were 400 automatic rifles and 3,500 rounds of ammunition.
	There are four main smuggling efforts: the endangered species are concealed; they are mis-declared; the permits under which they are brought in are fraudulent; and there is laundering through re-export. As a result, on average, Customs seizes 570 illegal wildlife items each day. Home Office figures for the period 1987 to 2001 reveal that only 51 cases were prosecuted. That bears repetition: there are 570 seizures of illegal items each day but there have been 51 prosecutions in 14 years. It is little short of a total disgrace.
	We are now all aware of the threat posed by international terrorism. Clearly, if we are to defeat it, we must not only defeat the terrorists militarily but destroy their supply lines and finance. There has not yet been a recorded instance of a direct, proven link between endangered species and international terrorism, but the links with international criminal activity, which clearly reads over into terrorism, is very clear indeed.
	As I said, we must also consider the effect that the trade in endangered species has on the world's reserves of wildlife. A taxidermist in Islington has admitted 29 charges of obtaining licences by forgery and 12 cases of keeping endangered species for sale without a licence. The endangered species found in the shop included the two tiger cubs that I mentioned earlier, leopards and an elephant's foot that had been turned into a table. The man responsible got six months' imprisonment.
	In April 2000, a company was caught in possession of 138 shahtoosh shawls, made from the fleece of a slaughtered Tibetan antelope, which is an endangered species. The combined value of those shawls was £350,000; the fine for the people caught in possession was simply £1,500—an utterly pathetic £10.87 per shawl. Those shawls had a retail value of between £3,000 and £12,000.
	In 2002, a survey by Traffic of Chinese medicine shops in the United Kingdom showed that 64 per cent. of them sold illegal products, such as protected plant and animal species, including leopards, bears, musk deer and the extremely rare costas root.
	Finally, there is a recent case of a shop that sold whole lions, stuffed, for £5,000 each. It also sold antelopes, porcupines and large live snails. The man responsible received simply a four-month sentence. That is pathetic and extremely damaging.
	Those are the reasons why I believe that the Bill is so important. That criminal activity has simply been allowed to continue unchecked for far too long. The current international situation lends the issue urgency, and the Government should act at once. The Bill could not be simpler—it has just one clause—and it would clearly make a demonstrable difference. I urge the House to give it a Second Reading.

John Mann: I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) on introducing this private Member's Bill, which will receive support from all corners of the House. It is timely and, if enacted, its result—raising sentences—will be long overdue.
	Current provision is inadequate. The prison sentences are far too short—if they are imposed at all—and the fines are paltry, as the hon. Gentleman said so eloquently, so the incentives for those who take part in this lucrative trade are enormous. It is fair to say that the criminals involved in that trade are taking a disproportionately low risk compared with other types of crime, given the proceeds and penalties. He is rightly seeking to redress that imbalance with the Bill.
	As the chair of the all-party endangered species group, I know that it has attempted to highlight wildlife crime in the past year. In the last Session, early-day motion 862 received the signatures of more than half the House. Indeed, if it were not for the protocol in relation to certain Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers, in excess of 90 to 95 per cent. of the House would have signed that early-day motion. That demonstrates the depth of support for the Bill, for the early-day motion was precisely along the lines of the wording proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
	The consensus in the House on the importance of the issue was further emphasised by the contributions in considering the Criminal Justice Bill in Committee, when an amendment that I tabled received open and positive support from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members.
	London has become something of a centre for the illegal trade in endangered species. The depth of the problem is best summed up by the case involving shahtoosh shawls. Not only was the fine absurd in relation to the possible profits, but the find represented at least 2 per cent. of the entire world population of that species. That haul shows how quickly and monstrously a species can be eliminated by such international crimes. The hon. Gentleman illustrated the range of different examples in this country, which I shall not repeat. If the trade has a good base in this country, many other international centres will be involved, too.
	The better-known examples include ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts. There are tiny numbers of tigers left in the world, as the Indian Wildlife Board has explained in great detail to me, because they are constantly under pressure from poachers who are openly prepared to risk their lives for the profits available. Much of that trade finds its way to London, which is a significant danger. Of course, precisely the same problem occurs with less well-known species such as the chiru antelope.
	The other issue that I want to bring to the House's attention is the linkage with criminal gangs. The survival of the tiger, the rhino and other endangered species should be a fundamental concern of politicians in this House and throughout the world. We would betray future generations were we not to make sure that our house was in order, in Britain, in terms of how we attempt to play our small role in protecting those species. That is precisely the aim of the Bill, which would assist in that attempt.
	In addition, the House should be under no illusions about who are in these wildlife crime gangs. They are not localised, cowboy-type poachers who happen to encounter an animal, kill it and somehow try to sell its parts. It is an organised trade. The same gangs are laundering money and smuggling people, drugs and arms: the worst kind of arms. Even when that has been identified, it is difficult to catch them.
	To give some examples, at Heathrow, a consignment of live foreign snails packed with heroin was found. In Miami, boa constrictors smuggled in as part of a shipment of 312 animals from Colombia were found to be filled with cocaine—39 kg of it—and all the reptiles died. The same gangs are involved. The profits are of similar margins, and, therefore, be it ivory, heroin or people, they will take their chance on each and every one.
	The Indian Wildlife Board has illustrated that in great detail by tracking to whom the people doing the poaching in the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks in India are linked. It is the same organised crime gangs who are smuggling drugs from Afghanistan, and smuggling people from Albania and the Balkans, into Britain and other countries. Therefore, by increasing the penalties for this particular crime, we assist in tackling those two major problems in today's world.
	I commend the Bill, and I hope that, in the same way that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) did, the Minister will be minded, considering his consultation on the issue, to give a clear guarantee to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that amendments will come forward at the appropriate time, later this Session, under the Criminal Justice Bill.

Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) on raising this subject. As he said, the Bill is extremely simple. I believe that it is the same Bill that was introduced in the previous Session, which was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
	The Bill increases the penalty for offences relating to endangered species from two years' imprisonment to five years' imprisonment. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent cited the example of people caught smuggling lions at £5,000 each, who were sentenced to only four months. I wonder what we are doing if we already have a penalty of two years that we do not use. It seems to me that education is needed: we have to get through to the judiciary and others the message that this is a very serious offence. If, in a case such as that of Mobolagi Osaknadi and Rose Kinnane—difficult names to pronounce—a sentence of only four months was given, what guarantees do we have?

John Mann: Does the hon. Lady agree that one implication of raising the tariff from two to five years is that it would make the offence an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which would, for example, give police officers greater search rights? Is that not precisely why wildlife crime officers, 39 of whom are currently employed by constabularies, are so strongly in favour of the Bill?

Sandra Gidley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point.
	The trade in shahtoosh was mentioned. As the only woman present in the Chamber, I hate to say this, but we somehow have to get the message across that shahtoosh are not acceptable—that they represent too high a price to pay for fashion or vanity.

Hugh Robertson: It is not merely a question of vanity. To make the shawls, the fur is taken from the underside of the antelope, which has to be killed to get it.

Sandra Gidley: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about the vanity of people—usually women—who give no thought to the terrible way in which a product is produced, but simply want the latest fashion. The reason why I make this point is that earlier today we debated a Bill on female genital mutilation. That might not appear relevant, but during that debate it was pointed out that women's magazines have done a good job of informing women about such issues. Perhaps through the all-party endangered species group, those magazines can be targeted to get the message across about endangered species. We are already seeing an increase in fur wearing by women. The campaign against fur was so successful that for years women did not wear fur, but this year on the catwalks—no pun intended—fur reappeared. We must do all we can to prevent its re-emergence in fashion.

John Mann: The hon. Lady makes an interesting and important point that I had not considered before, but I would hate the impression to be given that the problem is created solely by women consumers. In fact, and without going into lurid detail, claims made by some in the quirky pseudomedical professions that tiger parts and rhino horn have aphrodisiac properties are aimed specifically at men. The same educational message needs to be given to men, perhaps through the men's magazines.

Sandra Gidley: I agree entirely.
	The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent outlined problems with the numbers. I have some recent figures for one year, which were produced in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. His question was:
	"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many seizures were made of (a) species and (b) other material listed under the CITES"—
	that is, the convention on international trade in endangered species—
	"regime . . . how many prosecutions were pursued and what the outcomes were of those prosecutions."
	The answer was:
	"In the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 Customs made 337 seizures of imports or exports subject to EU legislation on endangered species. The goods seized were:
	Live animals—6,345
	Plants—8,734".
	Nearly 2 million parts or derivatives were seized and the answer then referred to "items recorded by weight". It added:
	"In the same period Customs prosecuted six persons."—[Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 462W.]
	Only six people were prosecuted.
	I hope that everyone supports the need for increased training of Customs officers so that they know what to look for. Increasing importance should be placed on that. Although the trade in endangered species is important in itself, we have already heard that it takes place alongside the traffic in narcotics and the arms trade. For those reasons, we need to ensure that Customs officers receive all the training that they need.

James Gray: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) on introducing this small but important Bill. I hope that we give it a fair wind.
	I inadvertently misled the House in the previous debate on ragwort. I congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on introducing two ten-minute Bills on that subject. Those Bill were, of course, on the subject of endangered species. I was getting the two debates mixed up. I congratulate him on the two Bills that he introduced last year on this issue.
	This is a small but important Bill that will increase the maximum penalty to five years in prison. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) correctly pointed out, one of the important provisions in the Bill is that it would make the trade in endangered species an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the relationship between the Bill and that Act.
	The Opposition are great supporters of CITES, and we always have been. The previous Conservative party manifesto supported the convention and talked about extending it. For example, we think that the Asiatic black bear and the large number of cetaceans that are in demand from commercial aquariums should be added to its list. It is a worthwhile international agreement that should be extended. We certainly support the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent to increase the penalties payable by those who trade in endangered species.
	I shall add hardly anything to the remarks of my hon. Friend and those of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. They outlined the awfulness of the trade and its links with narcotics, the arms trade and other smuggling activities. A large number of seizures have taken place, including 1,001 at Heathrow alone in the past four years. The trade is widespread.
	The World Wildlife Fund produced the excellent report "Switching Channels", and I pay tribute to its work. The report has highlighted the fact that traders export illegally 25,000 to 30,000 primates, 2 million to 3 million wild birds, 10 million reptile skins and 500 million tropical fish. It is a huge trade and we must do something about it.
	I was particularly struck by the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent gave of the short sentences that were dished out to people who had committed severe crimes. It is important that the penalties are increased. There is support from both sides of the House and outside for the increase in penalties. The organisation Traffic has been asking for that and Stuart Chapman, the head of species at the World Wildlife Fund, has been outspoken in calling for an increase in the penalties. I was delighted to discover that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has stated his support for toughening the legislation. He said:
	"I am determined to toughen up the regulations and want the enforcement authorities to be able to throw the book at these criminals."
	Throwing the book at them in the way that the Government say that they want to do is precisely what the Bill would achieve. I commend it to the House.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for bringing the matter to the House's attention and I congratulate him on securing his place in the ballot and on the topic that he chose for the Bill.
	Many hon. Members have serious concerns about the illegal trade in endangered species and the Government are determined to tackle the problem. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is well known for his personal commitment to protecting wildlife in general and, especially, endangered species. Indeed, I hope that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the way in which he has represented Britain in many international discussions about the issue because that has strengthened our position in the world.

John Mann: I endorse the Minister's comments about my constituency near neighbour the Under-Secretary. Has there been any discussion and consultation between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office about endangered species, because questions that I tabled to the Home Office on the matter have been redirected to DEFRA? I have received satisfactory answers but I have also talked to Home Office Ministers. What ministerial or departmental discussions have been held between the Departments on the subject?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I should not refer to conversations and exchanges in government. However, given his discussions during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, he will know that Home Office Ministers and officials are working on the issues. DEFRA has lead responsibility for our policy on the protection of endangered wildlife, but there is a Government-wide approach that aims to strengthen the way in which we address it. The Bill and related initiatives would increase penalties for specific wildlife-trading offences, and Home Office and DEFRA Ministers are engaged in an approach to that.

John Mann: I was not attempting to entice the Minister to give us details of private discussions but his response was slightly vague. Will he confirm whether there have been formal discussions on the issue between the Home Office and DEFRA?

Alun Michael: I shall outline the ways in which we are pursuing the issue and deciding whether we should introduce legislation. I am not sure whether I misunderstand my hon. Friend. If he is trying to ascertain whether there is ministerial and official discussion between the Home Office and DEFRA on those issues, the answer is yes. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responds on behalf of the Government as a whole.
	Let me outline the Government's position. Many hon. Members have made it clear that they support increasing the penalties. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on attracting 344 signatures to his early-day motion in the last Session and on his tireless work that has done much to raise awareness of the issue. He made a strong point about the connection between different types of crime, including the read-across to drug and people smuggling. I am sure that he will agree that we need to ensure that people involved in the unpleasant trade are pursued effectively and strategically. There must be a lot of co-operation and the courts must be able to impose an appropriate penalty on people who are prosecuted.
	We accept that increasing the penalties is justified. In fact, we suggested that in a consultation paper that we published in January, which covers a range of other enforcement issues. The consultation has not finished yet, but in the meantime my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill currently going through Parliament, calling for increased penalties for illegal trade in endangered species. It was considered in Committee on 27 February, when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), said that, depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government would return to the issue on Report. I hope that both the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will accept that it would be premature for the Government to support the Bill while public consultation is still in progress. We will, however, return to the matter during the later stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, when I hope we shall be able to introduce exactly the measures that the hon. Gentleman seeks today.

Hugh Robertson: Is the Minister committing the Government to supporting my proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill, subject to the positive outcome of the review? Can we therefore expect legislation in the current Session?

Alun Michael: It would be inconsistent for me to say that we should await the completion and outcome of the consultation before deciding firmly on the next step. My precise words were "We will, however, return to the matter during the later stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, when I hope we shall be able to introduce exactly the measures that the hon. Gentleman seeks today". I also referred to what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in Committee. The hon. Gentleman should accept that as a firm indication of intent on the Government's part.

Hugh Robertson: Given that the Minister has been about as clear as it is possible to be, I do not think I need detain the House further. With the leave of the House, I will withdraw the Bill.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman may wish to do that, but he has raised an issue, and I think it sensible for us to explore what is being done.

Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now that I have been given the commitment that I sought, I do not think we need detain the House further on my account. Is it in order for me to withdraw the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: In a sense the Minister is giving as firm a commitment as he can, but there is a hint, shall we say, of some objection to the withdrawal of the Bill at this stage. Perhaps it would be as well if we heard the rest of the Minister's speech.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

James Gray: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a little puzzled. My hon. Friend has sought to withdraw his Bill, and the Minister has not formally objected to that. How can the Minister, who says that the Bill is unnecessary because its proposals will be included in another Bill presented by a different Department, none the less want to go on discussing a Bill which cannot now become law by any stretch of the imagination?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister's objection is to the withdrawal of the Question. The debate can therefore continue.

Alun Michael: I have tried to help the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent—

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Friday's business always consists of a series of private Members' Bills, and several were tabled for discussion today. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has received assurances from the Minister which have allayed any fears he had that the Government would not consider the matter, and he has said that he no longer wishes to pursue his Bill. Surely it is not in order for a member of Her Majesty's Government to prevent discussion of another Bill when the promoter of the Bill currently under discussion has stated so firmly that he wishes to withdraw it. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that suggests that a private Member is not in control of his own legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the Minister is responding to an intervention. I expect him to complete his response to that intervention.

Alun Michael: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, these interventions are taking up time.
	I want to set the Bill in context, but first I wanted to satisfy the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent as to the direction in which I intended to take the debate. He has raised important issues, so it is only fair to ensure that the House is aware of the steps that the Government are already taking to deal with some of them.
	Despite the strict controls on the trade in wildlife, there will always be people at one extreme who are genuinely unaware of them and, at the other, who deliberately and cynically breach them. People who bring home holiday souvenirs may not know that their new possession has been crafted from a highly endangered species, although they find out quickly enough when Customs officers seize the items.
	However, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw want to deal with much more sinister wildlife criminals. Some of them collect wildlife specimens for their aesthetic appeal, breeding potential or rarity. They will pay almost any price and have no regard for the effect of their purchases on the conservation status of that species. The demand for traditional medicines fuels the trade in certain endangered species, especially the tiger, the bear and the musk deer. Although work is being done to identify alternative products, the demand continues and provides an incentive for illegal trade.

John Mann: If the Bill were enacted, what would be the position as regards European legislation on wildlife trade, such as EU regulation 338/97?

Alun Michael: We are working hard with our colleagues in Europe to strengthen the steps being taken by the Commission.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my earlier point of order, you said that the Minister was responding to an intervention and that we must wait until he had done so before my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) could withdraw his Bill. It is obvious that the Minister has been reading from prepared notes and he has now responded to another intervention, so he must have come to the end of the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I assure the hon. Lady that the hon. Member promoting the Bill will have an opportunity to respond.

Alun Michael: In view of the comments of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I am shortening my contribution so as to place the Bill in context and not delay the House. However, it seems from her repeated interventions that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) does not want the House to understand the context of the trade in endangered species—

Cheryl Gillan: Quite wrong.

Alun Michael: I agree that it was wrong of the hon. Lady and I hope that she will stop intervening.
	Some wildlife crime is entirely profit driven and the National Criminal Intelligence Service has commented that ounce for ounce some wildlife products, such as rhino horn or deer musk, can be worth more than class A drugs or gold. That is an enormous incentive—a point strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.
	I want to make it clear that our approach is not only to increase the penalties for wildlife crime. We have taken several significant steps to improve the enforcement of wildlife legislation. In April last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment launched the national wildlife criminal intelligence unit. The Government are contributing £440,000 over three years to get the unit off to a strong start. In conjunction with the Magistrates Association, he also launched, in November of last year, an information toolkit and guidance to help magistrates to deliver effective sentences for environmental offences. That is an important point in view of the comments made by Members on both sides of the House about the use of the sentences available to courts. We accept the need to increase the penalties for illegal trading in endangered species. The current maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment is not sufficient in, for example, cases where specimens of a high value are involved, where illegal trade may affect the conservation status of the species concerned, or where the trade is highly organised or part of a pattern of ongoing illegal activity such as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.

John Mann: Have officers involved in the wildlife intelligence initiative been involved in the consultation process to 4 April, and has evidence been requested from them concerning the effectiveness of that initiative? For example, how will enabling officers to perform searches by making such activities arrestable offences under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 impact on that initiative?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right about the additional strengthening that that would bring to bear. Through the involvement of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, all avenues are being looked at to ensure that these matters are dealt with.
	It is our responsibility to ensure that the courts have appropriate penalties for serious offences of this type, which is why we have already proposed that the current penalty be increased. As I said, we hope to address this issue through amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, once we know the outcome of the current consultation exercise. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said that he is prepared to withdraw the Bill on the basis of the assurances that I have given, I am certain that we can move forward in a way that will be applauded on both sides of this House.

Hugh Robertson: In view of the almost cast-iron assurances that the Minister has given, I am more than happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Greenbelt Protection Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

John Baron: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In my constituency, we are very concerned about the various threats to our green belt. One growing danger is that of unauthorised development, especially by the travelling community, who buy land and quickly develop it without planning permission. A recent example at Sadlers farm, which I have highlighted before, involved a field next door to a roundabout. On the Friday, a 6 ft earth mound was constructed around the perimeter; on the Saturday, hardcore was laid; on the Sunday, caravans were moved in. By the time the council reacted with enforcement and stop notices, the development was complete. As a result, we have now entered into a lengthy planning and appeals process. Meanwhile, the illegal development continues. Similar situations have occurred at Hovefields in Wickford, and at Oak road in Crays Hill. In trying to combat the situation, Basildon district council—whether under Labour or Tory control—has found the existing law inadequate. This Bill attempts to put that right by giving local authorities additional powers to prevent the unauthorised development of green belt land.
	Before describing the suggested measures, I should like briefly to make two things clear. First, no one is looking to discriminate against a minority, but it is only fair that all those who live in the community should abide by its laws and regulations; otherwise, it is the majority who are discriminated against. Secondly, this Bill is the product of a long consultation exercise in which party politics has played no part. It has support on both sides of the House, and whatever the outcome, I should like to take this opportunity to thank all the sponsors for their support during its preparation. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on the Front Bench, and all those in their places who are supporting the Bill, as well as the many people who have written to express their support—including the Association of Essex Authorities and Basildon district council. In that spirit, I wish to present the Bill.
	Local authorities face two key problems when trying to deal with the issue. The first is that they have difficulty acting quickly enough to prevent the problem of unauthorised development. If an injunction is granted, it can be difficult to serve on the owner or occupier, as they are often difficult to pin down, especially if land has been sold on quickly or individuals are unco-operative. The second problem is that—although local authorities can issue stop and enforcement notices—in reality, rights of appeal and retrospective planning applications unnecessarily prolong the issue. The result is that the planning and appeals process can often take months, if not years. Even when that process is exhausted, local authorities often have to resort to the courts to reinstate the land. That can be a long process that does not necessarily result in the clearance of the land. Some planning departments, especially my own, believe that decisions go against local authorities because there is inadequate provision of sites.
	The Bill contains three proposals. First, in order to share the responsibility of site provision for the travelling community, the Bill would introduce the requirement for all local authorities to provide authorised sites. The target figure should be identified by the Government in consultation with regional bodies, county councils and local authorities. The allocation could be met by public or private sites and so would not necessarily cost local councils money. It would be up to them how the target was met, and it could be done entirely by granting planning permission on private sites.

John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Baron: No, because I wish to make progress.
	Secondly, the Bill will introduce powers to enable local authorities to more easily obtain an injunction, by allowing it to be served on a landowner whose identity is unknown to the local planning authority. Thirdly, local authorities would have a further power to serve a notice to remedy, the aim of which would be to reinstate the land to its original condition. That would be a discretionary power available to local authorities, with guidance that it should be used only when, in the opinion of the local authority, significant harm had been caused to the green belt or greenfield land under its control. If the land were not made good within a specified time, the local authority could arrange to put that right, the costs being reclaimed from the perpetrators where possible.
	The powers would interact with each other, so that the additional powers would be available to local authorities only if the agreed provision of pitches and sites had been met by the local authorities, which seems only fair if we are to recognise the way of life of the law-abiding traveller. It is important to stress that, apart from the provision of authorised sites, the additional powers would not be mandatory. They would be additional options, available to local authorities to choose to use if they so wished. Local councillors, democratically elected, would make the decisions.
	By ensuring that a sufficient number of authorised sites were provided and giving local authorities additional powers to combat large scale unauthorised development, whether by travellers or others, the Bill would create fairness for all. It is badly needed by local authorities and local communities, and I commend it to the House.

Tony McNulty: Before I address the substance of the Bill, it might be useful to put it into context, because much policy development regarding gypsies and travellers has taken place recently, and certainly within the past year. I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on the tone and manner in which he introduced his Bill. There are those—some in this House, sadly—who treat this subject with a degree of mischief or even malevolence that is not appropriate to the Chamber. One recalls a classic intervention from a right hon. Member who is not in his place today, but who shouted that gypsies were
	" . . . scum. They are scum".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 66WH.]
	I shall name him—it was the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). That happened some time ago, but he should still be suitably admonished for it.
	The hon. Member for Billericay has not gone down that path. I know from a range of meetings that I have had that his Bill has cross-party support in this place. There is a good deal of cross-party support, too, in Essex, as he said, and the issues that he highlighted are matters of real concern and are best dealt with responsibly. If for nothing else, he is certainly to be congratulated on the responsible way in which he raised them today.
	It is important to dwell on the context surrounding the Bill because a lot has happened over the past year or so. For the first time in a long while, there has been substantive research into gypsy and traveller site provision. There has been a rather tortuous process—I shall probably be in trouble for saying that—by which we have tried to update guidance on unauthorised encampment. The gypsy site refurbishment grant has also been introduced. It would therefore be useful for me to say a few words about those matters before turning to the substance of the Bill.
	Planning policies concerning provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether local authority or private, are set out, as the hon. Gentleman will be more than aware, in Department of the Environment circular 1/94, which was published in 1994, entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning". Although that circular is eight years old, the policy advice that it contains remains valid and should continue to be applied. The circular places gypsies and travellers on the same footing as others in relation to the planning system while recognising their special accommodation needs and the desire of many gypsies to buy their own sites to develop and manage.
	Gypsy sites constitute development and therefore require planning permission. In formulating development plans, local authorities are encouraged to discuss the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers with local communities with a view to identifying suitable locations for sites in plans wherever possible. For many local authorities, especially in rural areas, the identification of specific sites is not easy. Where they have found it impossible to identify suitable locations, local authorities must define clear and realistic criteria as a basis for site provision. It is the responsibility of the local authorities to judge how they frame their policies, and those are open to public scrutiny and comment at inquiries. Development plans must still take account of local circumstances. For example, gypsy and traveller sites are not among what is normally thought as appropriate uses of green belt land, a point to which I shall return when I reach the substance of the hon. Gentleman's Bill.

John Baron: Time is short, as the Minister will be well aware. He has referred to the fact that the Bill has good cross-party support. Does he intend to talk it out, or will he allow it its Second Reading?

Tony McNulty: As I was saying, gypsy sites are not among the uses of land normally considered appropriate for green belt land, areas of special scientific interest or open land where development is severely restricted. The onus rests on the applicant to prove that there are special circumstances that overcome harm by reason of inappropriateness. In gypsy and traveller cases, special circumstances often include health and educational needs. Unfortunately, gypsies often establish sites without first obtaining the necessary planning consent, which lies at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, and is why I dwell on the point. In many cases, the locations that they choose are inappropriate in land use terms; for example, the land may be green belt or open countryside. Enforcement action by local authorities against such unauthorised development is therefore common. As the hon. Gentleman says, there may be some need to review that aspect of the law, but for reasons to which I shall come, that should not be done in the manner suggested by his Bill. The availability of alternative sites can be a consideration when appeals against enforcement notices are determined.
	Given that the Bill raises those matters, it is important that I should talk about the enforcement of planning control in general. The Government share the view that local planning authorities should take appropriate enforcement action if they consider that an unacceptable breach of planning control has occurred. They have a range of weapons at their disposal, and I should like to outline what they are, not least because many of the suggestions in the Bill are inappropriate, impractical in terms of the law, or simply—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 13 June.

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.

GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.

FAIRTRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Eric Joyce: I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about the Fairtrade Foundation and the Fairtrade brand. I also intend to say a word or two about the Soil Association, an excellent organisation, and similar related organisations. Finally, I shall make a number of points about the interrelationship between what one might call the international development charities behind the Fairtrade Foundation and domestic agricultural interests, with particular emphasis on the possibility—in my view, ill advised—that the produce of developed economies such as the United Kingdom could in future receive a Fairtrade mark.
	The Minister will be aware, having attended the recent seminar at Stonleigh park on 14 March, and no doubt through many other channels, that the Fairtrade Foundation and similar organisations are wholly independent of Government yet dependent at various levels on taxpayers' funding, irrespective of whether the direct source of grants to and agreements with the organisation is the European Union, the UK or a regional body. That means that the Government have an interest in monitoring whether money is being well spent and that recipient organisations are effective and fit for a purpose that is in itself useful. The Fairtrade Foundation appears to be on a firm footing in that respect.
	Perhaps some information about Fairtrade is appropriate at this point. I have borrowed extensively from literature provided by the foundation and related organisations, since that seems to be the best way of putting on the record the organisation's description of itself and its objectives. The Fairtrade Foundation exists to ensure a better deal for marginalised and disadvantaged developing world producers. It was set up in the early 1990s by CAFOD, Christian Aid, New Consumer, Oxfam, Traidcraft and the World Development Movement. Its formation was a response to the collapse of world commodity prices in the early 1990s. The foundation awards a consumer label, the Fairtrade Mark, to products that meet internationally recognised standards of fair trade. In the foundation's own words, the brand challenges the conventional model of trade and offers a progressive alternative for a sustainable future. It also empowers consumers to take responsibility for the role that they play when they buy products from the developing world.
	Crucially, in recent years Fairtrade has placed great stress on quality issues. That means that supply chain consistency issues must be in order and, fundamentally, that the stuff people buy off the shelves is edible and drinkable. I have to say that during the mid- to late 1990s my family had two or three packets of Fairtrade tea and coffee permanently in the cupboard. We would take it out of the cupboard and use it once so that it did not look as though we were wasting it, then it would stay in the cupboard to be replaced by a new one three or four weeks later. Although that practice, albeit inefficient, produced a passable turnover for Fairtrade branded products, the recent focus on quality has produced remarkable results, with sales now up 90 per cent. on previous years. Indeed, the House has Fairtrade products located in each dining and recreational area, and I understand that sales are brisk.
	The foundation lays down five principles of fair trade. The first is to assist disadvantaged producers. That means developing access to markets in developed countries for producers who tend to be marginalised by conventional trading structures. There is a focus on smaller-scale producers, although that depends on the commodity in question. Coffee producers tend to be small and family owned, with production and marketing organised through co-operatives. Tea, on the other hand, is produced on estates where the focus of the Fairtrade brand is oriented on employment and environmental practices.
	The second principle is direct trade—in other words, cutting out the middle person and buying direct from farmers' organisations at a guaranteed price. The world coffee market militates against many small producers, who may sometimes receive far less than a reasonable rate—even in local terms—for their labours. Often, production methods are not what consumers in developed countries would approve of, but consumers cannot know, in the usual run of things, that that is the case. In the Fairtrade Foundation's words,
	"By bypassing the international commodity market and buying direct from farmers' associations or co-operatives, Fairtrade enables farmers to get a greater share of the rewards for their labour."
	The third principle is a fair price. For most products, Fairtrade criteria establish a minimum guaranteed price that covers the cost of production and ensures a living wage for growers. The set Fairtrade price is always the minimum price paid, but it rises in line with market prices if they rise above the minimum Fairtrade price.
	The fourth principle is pre-finance. Some small producers find it difficult to obtain finance to make their products available for export. They often have to pay very high interest rates. Producers may therefore request part payment of orders in advance of delivery, for which a fair commercial cost should be passed on by the importer.
	Finally, the fifth principle is that of a premium being payable by importers in addition to the purchase price. This payment is designated for social and economic development in the producing communities. The farmers and growers themselves decide how those funds are to be allocated. The money is normally used for improvements in health, education or other social facilities, although it is sometimes used to improve productivity or to reduce risk by introducing diversity into the product range of the producers.
	In addition to these principles, the Fairtrade Foundation seeks to establish long-term trading relationships, with orders being placed early in order to enable longer-term economic planning in the areas of production. The Fairtrade Foundation lays down criteria for product and producer eligibility that extend from the principles that I have just described. These are oriented around ingredients, labour management, monitoring and inspection processes, and licensing. The foundation lays out the details of the Fairtrade supply chain, which covers producers, importers, licensees and retailers. The assumption in this description of the supply chain that importers will always play a key part is important. I will come back to that later in my remarks. For the moment, I will augment that comment with a quote from the Fairtrade Foundation literature.
	"The success of the Mark depends on consumer confidence in the guarantee it offers that third world producers receive a better deal."
	I agree wholeheartedly. In many ways, that is the nub both of this debate and early-day motion 865.
	Just to put a bit of flesh on the bones, it is worth mentioning some of the products and countries of origin. Typical products include—as I am sure that you and the Minister are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker—coffee, tea, bananas, chocolate, honey, mangoes, sugar and orange juice. The producers are based in countries such as Belize, Bolivia, Ghana, Cameroon, Haiti, Ecuador and the Windward Islands. There is no doubt that the Fairtrade brand, founded by international development organisations, is doing fine things for producers in the developing world. The Fairtrade brand is in the ascendant, with sales for 2002 exceeding £63 million in the UK. I understand that that is 90 per cent. up on the previous year.
	I have already mentioned quality. Quality is vital when it comes to getting major retailers in the UK to take on Fairtrade products as a wholly viable commercial venture. The Co-op has now, for example, switched all its own-label chocolate bars to Fairtrade, and all filter coffee in the sandwich chain Prêt a Manger is now Fairtrade. That is commendable of both organisations, of course, but ultimately both require a solid rate of return, which means sales in volume. Quality lies at the heart of that.
	Growth in sales is leading to an early form of mainstreaming of Fairtrade products, which in turn helps some of the world's poorest people. The Fairtrade Foundation locates its role not simply in helping countries in the developing world but in reforming international trade. That may orientate around what might be called the Fairtrade philosophy. We do not have time now to interrogate the philosophy, but there seems to be a significant gap between the philosophical aims of the Fairtrade Foundation and the reality that most people buy Fairtrade products to help the developing world rather than as a critique of the world farming economy per se. The important thing to note is that while most people would concede that there are maleffects on developing world producers as a result of the common agricultural policy and other aspects of production in the developed world, they do not necessarily extend that to a philosophy that includes producers in the developed world. Of course it is perfectly possible to argue rationally that producers in this country, such as small producers of organic products, could benefit in the same way as producers in the developing world, and for the same reasons under the fair trade banner, but there are usually a number of competing but equally rational lines of argument available in any situation. The question is which is the most appropriate and effective in the context in which it is presented.
	The Fairtrade Foundation is at present conducting a study, in conjunction with the Soil Association, which could result in granting some United Kingdom producers the right to use the Fairtrade label. That is something with which I and many of my colleagues and our constituents disagree profoundly. The study will end in early 2004, at which point Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International will decide whether producers in the UK will qualify for the Fairtrade label. MPs and others have been asked to take part in the consultation phase, yet at one level that seems tokenistic, since it seems to me that the philosophy of the consultation, laid out in a number of Fairtrade Foundation documents, is already clear and mitigates in favour of so extending that label.
	One release said:
	"The Fairtrade Foundation is investigating if and how the philosophy and principles of Fairtrade could be applied in the UK. We are doing this mainly because over the past two years, as the profile of Fairtrade has grown and as the situation facing many UK farmers has deteriorated, our supporters . . . have asked us to. There is a body of opinion who believe that extending the principle of Fairtrade could actually help build its constituency."
	The release says that
	"the problems facing farmers in the developing world are not only due to trade rules. Equally problematic is the position of farmers as the weakest participant in a long supply chain onto whom all the risk and all the price reductions are always pushed . . . eleven UK farmers go out of business every day, their profits squeezed to non-existence."
	The same release notes:
	"Enabling farmers to stay on their land and find sustainable livelihoods must be central to the agricultural and rural futures of this country."
	That release was issued after an excellent article by The Guardian journalist Charlotte Denny.
	It is perfectly logical and desirable that an organisation such as the Fairtrade Foundation should be based on a wider philosophy. Indeed, many hon. Members have been an integral part of the development of that philosophy, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I have no doubt that many hon. Members lent their support to the idea because they saw it fundamentally as something that aided the developing world, and if we introduce a new feature into the equation, which is essentially that it becomes an argument about world farming and therefore has significant implications for UK farmers per se, that becomes a rather different proposition from what I think hon. Members, and members of the public and consumers, have supported until now.
	I happen to have a high regard for the Soil Association, which is the UK's leading organic organisation. I would say more about its merits, but I am constrained by time. Suffice it to say that the organic sector is a crucial part of the UK farming economy and the Government recognise that. I am sure that the Minister will say that in due course. However, if Fairtrade labels were to be extended to UK organic products, the same philosophy would have to be extended to UK non-organic products because Fairtrade products are not necessarily organic. Therefore one would effectively be extending the label possibly to a large number of producers in the developed economies. That would fundamentally damage the Fairtrade label. As early-day motion 865 says, many of my colleagues now believe that the extension of that label could be profoundly deleterious to the Fairtrade brand.
	I can only speculate as to the reasons why the Fairtrade Foundation has extended its underpinning philosophy to the conservation of UK farming. Although it is an argument that many well-known bodies put, it seems clear as day that it should not be a function of an organisation with a mission to help the developing world. However, if we were to speculate we might look closely at the influence of particular interest groups on the internal politics of the Fairtrade Foundation. That might include the excellent women's institutes or indeed the Soil Association or other farming interests. It is not to say anything negative about those organisations—quite the reverse. It is simply to say that where successful non-governmental bodies such as Fairtrade grow, their growth becomes central to their operations and people's careers come to depend on liaisons with other organisations, with perhaps overlapping but not necessarily exactly similar objectives.
	I conclude by reiterating my belief, and that of many of my colleagues, that extending the Fairtrade brand to cover UK products would be seriously detrimental to that brand. I hope that the Minister will continue to engage with the concept of fair trade and encourage his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and Department for International Development, to whom I will also write, to express their concern about what I regard as a worrying development.

Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing this debate and on choosing such a fascinating subject. Organic farming and fair trade are two very important but, as he has indicated, distinct subjects. Nevertheless, it is important to try to wrestle with the principles to which he referred.
	I have a long-standing interest in fair trade, both through the co-operative movement and through Traidcraft, which my wife promoted in our home town of Penarth for many years. I am not sure that it is an interest in the declarable sense, but it is certainly an enthusiasm, and it continues to occupy a considerable proportion of our cellar.
	Individual consumers can exercise choice in their moral and purchasing decisions. Together we can make a difference and achieve a great deal, especially with the encouragement of the Government's engagement in these issues, and I join my hon. Friend in applauding the work of the Secretary of State for International Development. It is a matter of pride to me that the House can make a difference, and not only in the availability of tea and coffee—the point at which I thought we were getting the message across was when the Churchill Room's selected wine for the month turned out to be Traidcraft wine from a co-operative in South Africa.
	I join my hon. Friend in applauding the efforts of the Fairtrade Foundation and others working in this field to promote equitable trading practices for producers in developing countries. The fair trade certification and labelling scheme responds to concerns, increasingly held by our society, about poverty and disadvantaged groups in developing countries whose living depends on fair prices and fair terms of trade. Such schemes also respond to the willingness, and indeed enthusiasm, of much of the business community to demonstrate concern for fair trading practices, reflecting the views of their customers.
	The Government strongly support organic farming as a sustainable method of production that provides significant environmental benefits. I gave organic farming targeted support when I was Secretary of State for Wales, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs strongly supports it. Last year, we developed our organic action plan for England with a wide range of stakeholders, and it is now being implemented. It concentrates on sustainable growth of the organic sector in this country. We are also very much alive to the potential of organic trade to help disadvantaged producers elsewhere in the world. We are, for example, supporting moves in the European Community to change the legislative requirements to facilitate trade from producer groups in developing countries, while maintaining the integrity of the organic certification system.
	The initiative outlined by the Fairtrade Foundation and the Soil Association in January has promising aspects that may help to meet fair trade objectives while also achieving benefits for trade in organic products. Co-operation between the respective certification bodies is to be welcomed, and I particularly support the plan to identify more organic producers in developing countries who can be certified to fair trade standards. I do not think that my hon. Friend's concerns extend to those proposals.
	The other stated objective of the initiative is to consider the introduction of fair trade certification—together, presumably, with labelling to inform consumers—for organic products from the UK. I understand that no decision has yet been taken by the sponsors of the project on the form that that could take. The Government do not necessarily have a role in the development of private certification schemes, where those are consistent with existing legislation. However, I recognise my hon. Friend's points about the confusion, and indeed harm, that could arise if fair trade labelling, in the form associated with products from developing countries, were to be applied to products from the UK and other developed countries.
	The connection between the concerns of farmers in the United Kingdom and the challenges of helping farmers in third-world countries is interesting. When I first had agriculture responsibilities, particularly in Wales, I was struck by the continual wish for a fair return to the primary producer. In fair trade, much the same concept takes the form of encouraging people to seek an assurance that the primary producer is not being squeezed by those who process and trade commodities around the world.
	In many ways, there is also an emphasis on the way in which farmers want to produce to a level of quality, to co-operate to ensure that they have some strength in the market place and to benefit from added value in products. That is very similar to the challenges of ensuring that such things can happen in other countries. Indeed, I have often underlined the importance of co-operation, and I am very pleased that the Curry commission's recommendations suggest that co-operation, quality and connection with the market can increase the returns to farmers in this country. At one level, there is a philosophical similarity between the wish to ensure a fair return to farmers, who have gone through extremely difficult times in recent years, and the concepts that underlie fairness in international trade.
	As my hon. Friend said, I took part in a conference discussion at Stoneleigh park only last Friday that brought together those two issues. It was fascinating to attend a conference, promoted by organisations such as the National Farmers Union, Christian Aid, the co-operative movement and a variety of others, in which people referred to what can we learn from one another and what are the points of dialogue. Some people might have the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed, but debating the issues is certainly well worth while.
	As the later part of the discussion continued and as I was asked questions following my contribution, I was a little concerned about the extent to which people returned to speaking about the need to protect farming in this country or to have an international trade regime that protects the poorer producers in third-world countries and retreated from dialogue to emphasising their priorities. So bringing together the two issues is not easy, and I am certain that the Soil Association, the Fairtrade Foundation and the others who have become involved in that debate will find that some extremely difficult and challenging issues remain.
	It is also worth underlining the fact that the Government strongly support world trade liberalisation under the Doha negotiations for agriculture. The Doha mandate makes a commitment to substantial reductions in subsidies and market protection and to special and differential treatment for developing countries. Our objectives in reforming the common agricultural policy are based on a market-led approach that will place the European Union on a stronger footing in the World Trade Organisation talks on trade liberalisation. All those issues are interrelated to a degree, and they are difficult to separate if we want to make sense of the world in which we live and if we believe in ensuring that fairness is achieved, as I know my hon. Friend does from his interest in this issue.
	On the other half of the debate, the Government fully recognise that British farmers face very serious difficulties caused by many factors, including declining markets and poor returns. It is important to underline the fact that our strategy for sustainable farming and food, based on the work of Sir Don Curry and the policy commission on the future of farming and food, sets out the new approach that is needed for the future.
	Our approach involves moving agriculture away from the constraints of production-related subsidies; reconnecting farmers with markets and strengthening the food chain; improving co-operation, performance and quality; enhancing training and opportunities to learn from best practice; and ensuring a secure basis for the future founded on the principle of sustainability, thus meeting economic, environmental and social objectives.
	Many of those principles, particularly the principles of sustainable development, are relevant to producers in the third world and to those economies. In an age in which commodity prices on the international market can fluctuate rapidly, the need to find the right way forward, which is not protectionist and does not encourage the production of goods for which there is no market, is extremely important. Certainly, none of that is easy. A resonance exists in terms of ensuring that the primary producer receives a fair return, or the return from adding value, and is well connected to the market, in terms of what consumers wish to receive, and to the point of quality, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. I endorse strongly, like him, the way in which fair trade products nowadays are of a high quality and are able to compete on those grounds. That is important if they are to have a long-term and sustainable future.
	I note my hon. Friend's concerns, and Government colleagues will see what he has said. At the end of the day, however, it is for those who undertake this work to consider the pros and cons in relation to the launch of the consultation in January. I am certain that they will take to heart many of the points that he has raised. The House should consider the issue with care: we must take our decisions on purchasing not only as Members of Parliament but as individual consumers. The issue of how we best promote choice for consumers—whether choice of organic products or choice to purchase fairly traded products knowing that a reasonable return goes to people in those developing economies—are all things that are important for us as citizens and for the House as a whole.

Eric Joyce: Does the Minister think that it might be appropriate to have a particular label, which the NFU or some other organisation might establish, which might have some function in this respect for UK produce that was distinct and different from the Fairtrade label? That would preserve the brand as things stand at the moment.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government's approach to the matter is that assurance schemes, whether the Soil Association scheme, schemes that give assurances about the fat-free nature of products, the red tractor scheme or the Fairtrade label, are best dealt with primarily on a voluntary basis, with the encouragement of Government, rather than through a top-down approach. Having said that, my personal view as a consumer, more than as a Minister or Member of Parliament, is that a variety of labels can become very confusing. Often, people who are concerned about the quality and health benefits of the products that they buy are also the sort of people who would look for organic products and fairly traded products.
	My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important issue, which poses a lot of challenges to which there is no easy answer. I hope, however, that the views that he has expressed will be taken into account by those who have the responsibility for responding to the consultation and discussion in January. I congratulate him on bringing such a big issue—it is not a small one—to the attention of the House in this Adjournment debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.